










































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































9 «£> 4 

“ V* Cr 





> * ", * *. \f . • • rv : ^* *♦ 

= \/ •***• ♦- -♦ 

o A^* v ^‘ 

^ XV v\ 

0> .^> ^ * 

*0 * * 

q N o 'f'b. A r * - 

*9 o 





V> A <* 

■% ° AV ♦W^>” V. 

« ^ A * *p. <? 

* ° V *^ Cr 

\0 \7*' * « 

„ ■ V’ “ * 

^ * A -^\ ^ ^"vnwr . 

i° <!> - . . » 0 . < 5 , 

A ^j^l*. ^ v 4 - 

tfc A* V. 



« -or ^ 

* < 1 ^ O *• i^x- 3 

A y v ^ 

V .••<>- O. AT s * *> 

^ ^ . a t>> 

°° 

* A*S * 

‘' JT ^ ' A <x ’A ?* 4 . 6 ** 

C° .*. °o A \ 0° . 

* ° V * ^ cr 

9 jP v, # r~ 

v iv <V <" t 

-A j> , 

A o> 

* O N 0 ° . -^) 4 





o *■ o 

° 4 ^ * * ' 1 ° A 0 '<** 

c\ Ar y*/'* y 

% A ^ ^ 

AA /\ IIJR. : A\ t^. . ^ . 

< v» ° ’ ‘ * A 4 * *'-* sS A- <^» '».»* .G 4 ” ^ ‘VTV’** 

^ QT 0 0 N C * A> <<V , t / a <J> aV 0 N C ^ 

' ‘ '• ° *W%C’ % c \Usx&>i' j j- 

^ov* .' 4 f^*; ’if 

. ^° V ^ " 






^ \ n < 




* i k ^ s T :> ^ O^ *.,,•’ ^0 

> *i*»> o. J,0 V s 5 *''* <?• 

* l 



^ A ♦nSK* a ^ ^ ”* <& % 

<5 ' * * s * A <v * 0 • A * (y \ 

t 0 N ° ♦ **e~> <^ o'-'*- •<£. n> o N o 

L *ls$swb ° ^ o u 

<^\\lt^, „ v>^ ^ *• Jrfl///y?~> * As << AW^- 

o 


1 / ^ . 

r- ' tv~ * 

* O * 

* y °<p 

V A*°- c\ 

* ^ A aw/k- < 5 ^ 9 ^ * 

2 S-O S ° 
o aV A 




a5 °c 


r^f’ o' 5 A ■ 


Vv 

• * A A, - ^ 

■> A/ '{a o t|p 
■* ^ 

r< 'o\s 4 A <V ^o . * 

(* V 0 "VA ♦ O * 1 ' -» -< ^ A 

0 * O yL/r&S f *f> 

•/* x'J ♦ J 6 V//yvs T y 

• v :§m&' ^ o< 

p * ^y° Atx » , 

' ^ rv r «i* <»> ’ 

' -0 ; 


<0 S 

*ts A 4 - »‘ J 

A V *V 

^ ^ °* 



f „ 



°4, *•'<’•' ^°' V.' 

' rf. oy ’MM," ^r. <A ♦ C-sSa, • 'A A » 

v-a : 

,n/^a\v. 

. '•.»* ,0^ T o 



v A”^- '°% 

* <y ^ ° a K 


^d» 


<X '••*•' ^ A '•''TTT*’ / 

a i < j <^. a v o n o ^ A" 

£ ^ ^ yvi / v G __ ^ O 

A <i c ° A < 

^•o 4 ^o v 4 ; 

A Ox - 9 \0 r/\ * * 4 o 

,-w.' A O 0 A *>^R' r A * 

* ° * ° ° A * • I ’ * ^° 'V * o . o 0 4" °i ’ * •" -. * ’ A 0 

’ *". ^ A ^e4r„ ^ . V 4 \. < \ A * * • 

- A A. - jrf*F\SU 7 /»s^ vV- A. V ft A A x * Tj. x U’ V. 

A ^ ’^ Wa " a a *■ 

* - <SSS......ES£<- , -V^v 

S’ -t 



» > 

%* o 
.* n*' 


P v 


, VK yy <i 

^ <$> * 
S ® ' 


/\ ^1R' A\ °®P‘ ; A A . w< .v - 

} %■ . \> O *'°-** < .o 4 " -^wfT’ a 4 * *, 

°o A ‘*^ ^ fO^ ««"«.. ^ 0 A .l, A 



’ ^-o 4 


, ° 0 A *• 

• <0 * 4 o 

’ 0 V‘^*A 

y v * Oa. o .<y ,s*«^ A> <^ v 

" r y n A * ^ *■ 

Aa A 



♦.in*’ AO' V ^ 

\ / ,^, "> v v , 

vP -V * 2^111^ A<x av * A 

vP ‘p ° ' y* 4 ^ <6 A\V?JAA% ° 

A A A A --^^Sx 0 A A. 

" , <»x '••** A A 

1 ' *- <** .“"“x ^O A V ,X'» ^ 

(j * rA^Av o xA t AK 7 - 2 _ „ A f*' 

> k j£m 6& l* 4 o' 

■* A cr 0 














* ° vr * 

*6 V* ' 

* 0 v* 


♦ r\ ^ v ^»m.vxvsj* ' 

o. */?■»•* \Q ; ^ ° 0 * 

*U 1 A *A ® « 0 Vv ° 




cp 

. . . „ / ^ ^ V* 

„t/A <s> 

. - ^ SL W* *l c° * 

* +*$ ' 

° <j5 ^ 



A. t > 

aO A‘‘% > 

: W 




Jy° ^ « 

, 0 % 

*£* ® ' 1 A, & * o N o ■$' ^ - g , n - ,v 

O x<V \> y * o V^, s 

* ^ a* ^ «, v >. aV * 

* vv •*■ i ({\«»Au cy « 

r VV^ * ^ v 

Z 
O 



V »> ^ A * 

«. v>* ,“D- *> 

o Ok » 

A o. v « x 0 «*■ 

> r O 0 -*\ * 

' ^ *'«/•'* ^ * » « o J •?, 

.!**•-. v x* 9 »:&&. * v\ 

• <•>> <£ * ■*.& *. 


cp '^V 

/ <? A . 

., <x -••'»* a ck A- *-r,'’ <\ 

x& O L ' fl ^ <£x Q^ o N C ^ ’b- ) A OS’ t / e "•<£ 

t xK2o_ ^ 0 * J^v\V * <■“ O j'v . * „ ,v?~ * -. "£ 





\P V 


o 

. .A r V^x 

x 4-' ^ ° 

A^ o <- ' • ^ 

AT S&fftffrA ^ 


r oK 




o V 

o. > * ,0^ 

h x^~ ^ N ^ V*x 

* ^ o +46£4r*A 0 ^ 

5 ^ V *•■’*\f° 


- ^ ° A 

v * - ^ a 0 ^ b> v" - 1 

* V c'T ^ 


. #*% 

* ^- v A&- * 



* 


0 N o 




<5 * o S s 

* Ad a^- ,. •■ • a + .o v o 0 " c ■» ' o 

. ° * j^rfrTTpA %r C * -- - 

* ^ 0 < oV .. ^ 

<• 


\SfS^ sl '*“ -A°x> ’AWi&: - *°' r + A°x- 

<ix '^^~ S A * -CL' O' * ‘^VtJf ■) A cix o> « -CL^ t • *• -i-^yv » 

^ 0 N 0 V v °^ * *' 1 * A 0 .. ^ ^ 0 « 0 0 /p 9*. ' * ' • ■> * A° 






0 V .• 


V P * ° C>x A . 

’Ox A®" % 

^ A v * -(A «sr Au cy * 

<x 'o 

-J^ V • 1 ' • » ^x 

% ° A SjK/xfo;, A. 

■*b A - ^ 




• ** ^ ^ 
v r <b. 

/•■‘A, ^ 

<N <■ J?/A//>A>, 'Xx 
e Ok » wwTi x v* 

« . 0 ^ 







































































































































































































































































































































































































THE FINANCING OF EDUCATION 

IN 

THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


j 

A REPORT REVIEWED AND PRESENTED BY 


THE EDUCATIONAL FINANCE INQUIRY COMMISSION 


w 


UNDER THE AUSPICES OF 


THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 


/ >/ / 

THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED FOR THE COMMISSION BY 

GEORGE D. STRAYER 

AND 

ROBERT MURRAY HAIG 

MEMBERS OF TIIE COMMISSION 


> 

1 • 

* « v 
t » 

* j « 


Ntfo forft 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 

1923 


All rights reserved 


PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


IS&z'Z ZQ 

. thE>5 



Copyright, 1923, 

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 


Set up and electrotyped. Published December, 1923. 



Norfcoooti ^ress 

J. S. Cushing Co. — Berwick & Smith Go. 
Norwood, Mass., U.S.A. 

©C1A705505 O 

Dffi 31 *23 ■ 






FOREWORD 


One of the most important and most difficult problems now confronting 
the American people is that of public education. 1 The problem is twofold. 
It relates, on the one hand, to the character and extent of the public educa¬ 
tion that should be furnished; and on the other, to the cost of carrying 
out the educational program that is proposed and the practicability of 
obtaining the necessary financial support. The growing importance of the 
financial question has been emphasized at almost every educational confer¬ 
ence since 1918. Resolutions urging a thorough investigation of the cost of 
education, and of the public resources available to support it, were passed 
at the Citizens’ Conference on Education, called by the United States 
Commissioner of Education, in May, 1920. A group of those interested 
in this question conferred at the time of the meeting of the Department of 
Superintendence of the National Education Association in Atlantic City 
in February, 1921. The group designated this question as the most vital 
one now confronting school administrators and appointed a committee 
to assist in launching an investigation. 

The committee named at Atlantic City met in New York in August, 1921. 
It prepared at that time a memorandum indicating the scope of an inquiry 
concerning the financing of education and proposing that a commission be 
appointed to carry forward the undertaking. This memorandum was 
submitted to the executive officers of the Commonwealth Fund, the General 
Education Board, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Milbank Memorial 
Fund. These officers had already indicated their interest in such an 
undertaking. The several boards mentioned accepted the memorandum 
presented and provided funds for the conduct of the Inquiry. These funds 
were placed in the hands of the American Council on Education, with the 
distinct understanding that the responsibility of the boards donating the 
money ended with the payment of these funds to the Council. The indi¬ 
viduals whose names appear in this report were appointed as a commission 
to conduct the investigation and were given entire responsibility for the 
work to be undertaken. 

Headquarters for assembling and interpreting data were informally 
opened at Teachers College in late September, 1921, and were well staffed 
and under way by October 24, when the first regular meeting of the Com- 

1 Throughout the report “public education” is used in the popular sense to mean tax-supported educa¬ 
tion. “ Public schools ” is to be interpreted as meaning tax-supported schools. The Commission recognizes 
the fact that in a real sense all educational institutions are public in that they serve the community, the 
state, and the nation. 


IV 


FOREWORD 


mission was held. Beginning at this time and ending in October, 1923, 
the Commission at varying intervals held six meetings of a week each in 
New York or Atlantic City and two informal one-day meetings. At these 
meetings the Commission outlined policies, devised and evaluated general 
plans of investigation, and reviewed and criticised the methods of work and 
the tentative drafts and later revisions of the manuscripts submitted by the 
Headquarters Staff. 

In order that the Commission might have competent criticism of its 
work before publication, the American Council on Education appointed 
the following Advisory Committee: 

Edwin R. A. Seligman, Professor of Political Economy, Columbia 
University, City of New York 

C. E. Chadsey, Dean, School of Education, University of Illinois, 
Urbana, Illinois 

Matthew Woll, Vice-President, American Federation of Labor, Chicago, 
Illinois 

Wesley C. Mitchell, Director, National Bureau of Economic Research, 
City of New York 

Will C. Wood, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Sacramento, 
California 

Frank Vanderlip, Publicist, City of New York 

James R. Angell, President, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 

The report presented herewith and others issued by the Commission 
have been reviewed by the members of the Advisory Committee. Their 
criticisms have been helpful and have been carefully considered by the 
Commission. Full responsibility for the publication rests, however, with 
the Commission. 

The Commission desires to acknowledge its indebtedness to Dr. Frank 
P. Graves, Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, and to 
his associates, who have cooperated most efficiently with the headquarters 
staff in the assembling and interpretation of the data for the State of New 
York. The members of the Commission were fortunate in undertaking an 
intensive study in a state which had assembled more adequate information 
concerning the cost of its schools than is commonly found in state depart¬ 
ments. They were even more fortunate in the active, intelligent, and 
continuous service which that state department willingly gave the Inquiry. 

Superintendents of schools, and others engaged in the administration of 
schools in the State of New York and throughout the nation, have responded 
most cheerfully to our requests for information. Business and banking 
houses, insurance underwriters, and others have made available from their 
records such data as were needed, and have helped in the compilation of 
facts in their several fields over a wide area. 

The State Comptroller has rendered valuable assistance by opening his 


FOREWORD 


V 


records for the use of the Commission. The State Tax Commission 
varied its work-schedule in such manner as to give to the Commission 
compilations of data in a special form and in advance of the date at which 
usually they are available. 

A group of graduate students in Teachers College, Columbia University, 
— Harold F. Clark, Homer Cooper, John Guy Fowlkes, G. C. Gamble, 
W. L. Hanson, Charles W. Hunt, J. R. McGaughy, William T. Melchior, 
R. O. Stoops, Clarence H. Thurber, John W. Twente, — assisted in the 
work of the Inquiry during a period of eight months. 

The Commission is indebted to Teachers College, Columbia University, 
for space for the work of the headquarters staff. Two rooms with light and 
heat have been made available for more than two years, without cost to 
the Inquiry. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Foreword .iii 

SUMMARY.3 

PART ONE 

THE FINANCIAL PROBLEM OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK 

CHAPTER PAGE 

I. Introduction . 19 

II. The Educational Program of the State of New York ... 22 

Compulsory Education .......... 23 

Kindergarten Education ......... 23 

Secondary Education .......... 23 

Higher Education and Teacher Training ...... 23 

Special Education ........... 27 

Illiteracy and Americanization Work ....... 27 

Local Adjustments .......... 27 

III. The Total Cost of Public Education and Its Growth ... 29 

Aggregate Current Expenses ........ 29 

Aggregate Plant Costs . . . . . . . . . .31 

Cash Disbursements . . . . . . . . . .31 

Annual Accrued Economic Charge ....... 34 

Total Cost ............ 36 

Total Costs of Schools of Different Grade ...... 39 

IV. Current Expenses of Public Education Analyzed .... 42 

The Salary-Ratio Formula ......... 42 

Elementary School Costs ......... 43 

Current Expenses of Elementary Schools — General . . . .43 

Variations from City to City ........ 44 

Variations from Village to Village . .... 45 

Current Expenses and Teachers’ Salaries ...... 46 

Current Expenses in Elementary Schools by Grades and by Objectives 48 

Salary Costs of Regular Teachers by Grades and by Objectives . . 53 

Aggregate Salary Costs of Teaching and Supervision per Pupil in Eight 
Elementary Grades .......... 56 

Kindergarten Costs .......... 58 

Current Expenses for High Schools ....... 62 

Evening Schools — Adult Education ....... 67 

Special Education ........... 70 

Current Expenses for Higher Education ...... 70 

Training of Teachers in Tax-supported Institutions .... 73 

Teachers’ Salaries.73 


vi 



















TABLE OF CONTENTS vii 

CHAPTER PAGE 

V. Plant Costs of Public Education.80 

Plant Costs — Cash Disbursements ....... 81 

Plant Costs — Annual Accrued Economic Cost ..... 82 

Imputed Interest — How Calculated.87 

Appreciation in Value of School Sites.88 

The Adequacy of the School Plant.91 

VI. The Support of Public Education in the State of New York 

— An Analysis of the Sources.92 

Analysis of Support by Political Divisions ..92 

Subventions . ...93 

Basis of Subventions .......... 94 

Amounts of Subventions . . . . . . . . .101 

Analysis of Support by Fiscal Nature of the Sources .... 101 

VII. The Support of Public Education in the State of New York — 

The Revenue System.107 

The Property Tax ........... 108 

The Personal Income Tax . . . . . . . . .113 

The Business Taxes . . . . . . . . . .113 

Miscellaneous Taxes . . . . . . . . . .114 

VIII. The Present and Probable Future Total Cost of Education in the 

State of New York . . . . . . . . . .116 

Aggregate Cost of All Education in the State in 1921 . . . .116 

Estimated Costs Involved in the Enforcement of Legal Requirements 

and the Acceptance of Higher Standards.118 

Estimates of Probable Future Increases in Costs ..... 120 

PART TWO 

RESOURCES FOR MEETING THE PROGRAM 

IX. Economic Resources of the State of New York Compared with Edu¬ 
cational Expenditures . . . . . . . . .127 

Economic Resources in the State of New York, 1910-1922 . . . 129 

Cash Disbursements for Public Education Compared with Economic 
Resources, 1919-1920 .......... 134 

X. The Economic Limitations of Educational Expenditures . 141 

The Character of the Educational Product ...... 141 

The Increase and Diversion of Educational Support .... 146 

XI. The Problem of School Finance in Relation to the Revenue System 

of the State ........... 156 

The System of Taxation . . . . . . . . .156 

Changes Suggested by the Joint Legislative Committee . . . 157 

Comparison with the “Model Plan” of the National Tax Association 158 
Conclusions ........... 160 

XII. The Size of the Unit for School Support and the Problem of State 

Aid ............. 161 

The Operation of the Present System of Subventions . . . . 162 

State Aid under a County System .. .166 

“Equalization of Educational Opportunity” ...... 173 























viii TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER PAGE 

XIII. The Separate Financing of Schools .177 

XIV. Problems of Organization and Administration .... 184 

Budgetary Procedure in the State of New York ..... 184 

School Accounting ........... 187 

Financing Capital Outlays ..188 

Insurance ..... . 190 

Codification of the Education Law.191 








LIST OF TABLES 


TABLE 

NUMBER PAGE 

A Amounts of Various Items — State of New York, 1910, 1915, 1920, and 

1922, Expressed in Actual Dollars, for Years Ending June 30 . .14 

B Percentage Relationships of Various Items — State of New York — Ex¬ 
pressed in Actual Dollars, to 1910 as a Base, Computed from the Data of 
Table A. 15 

1. Current Expenses of Public Education, 1910-1922, for Years Ending July 31, 

State and Local — State of New York.30 

2. Plant Costs of Public Education, 1910-1922, Cash Disbursements, for Years 

Ending July 31, State and Local — State of New York .... 33 

3. Plant Costs of Public Education, 1910-1921, Annual Accrued Economic 

Charge, for Years Ending July 31, State and Local — State of New York . 35 

4. Total Cost of Public Education, 1910-1922, Current Expenses plus Plant 

Costs, for Years Ending July 31, State and Local — State of New York . 38 

5. Total Cost of Public Education (Cash Disbursements) Classified by Type of 

Activity Receiving Support, 1910, 1915, 1920-1922, for Years Ending July 


31, State and Local — State of New York.40 

6. Elementary School Costs — State of New York, 1920, 1921, Current Expenses 

per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance.44 

7. Elementary School Costs — Cities — State of New York, 1911, 1916, 1921, 

Current Expenses per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance ... 44 

8. Elementary School Costs — Villages over 4,500 — State of New York, 1911, 

1916, 1921, Current Expenses per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance . 45 

9. Elementary School Costs — Villages Having Less than 4,500 Population and 

Maintaining High Schools — State of New York, 1921, Current Expenses 
per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance ..45 

10. Elementary School Costs — Cities and Villages over 4,500 — State of New 

York, 1911, 1921, Total Current Expenses Compared with Teachers’ Sal¬ 
aries, per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance ...... 46 

11. A Sample Copy of Report Used as Basis for Distribution of Current Expenses 

of Elementary Schools among Grades and Subjects.49 

12. A Summary of Data for the Fifth Grade Taken from the Special Report of One 

City — State of New York, 1922 . 50 

13. Elementary School Costs — One City — State of New York, 1921-1922, 

Distribution of Salaries of Regular Teachers, Teachers of Special Subjects, 
and Supervisors of Special Subjects among the Several Objectives, per Pupil 
Yearly, Based on Average Daily Attendance ...... 52 

14. Current Expenses — Elementary Schools — Certain Third-Class Cities, Vil¬ 

lages over 4,500, and Union School Districts — State of New York, 1921— 

1922, Salaries of Regular Teachers by Grades and by Subjects . . 53 

ix 




X 


LIST OF TABLES 


TABLE 

NUMBER PAGE 

15. Elementary School Costs — Cities, Villages over 4,500, and Union School Dis¬ 

tricts— State of New York, 1921-1922, Current Expenses (Middle Case) 
for Salaries of Regular Teachers by Grades and by Subjects, per Pupil in 
Average Daily Attendance ......... 55 

16. Elementary School Costs — Cities, Villages over 4,500 and Union School Dis¬ 

tricts — State of New York, 1922, Aggregate Salary Costs, per Pupil in Av¬ 
erage Daily Attendance, of Regular Teachers, Teachers of Special Subjects, 
and Supervisors, for the Whole Elementary School Period, Grades One to 
Eight Inclusive, Calculated to the Nearest Whole Dollar .... 57 

17. Kindergarten Costs — Cities — State of New York, 1920, 1921, Total Cur¬ 


rent Expenses, Teachers Salaries, and Current Expenses Other than Teach¬ 
ers’ Salaries per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance ..... 59 

18. High School Costs — Cities, Villages over 4,500, and Union Schools — State 

of New York, 1911, 1916, 1921, Current Expenses per Pupil in Average 
Daily Attendance ........... 63 

19. High School Costs — Cities and Villages over 4,500 — State of New York, 

1911, 1921, Total Current Expenses Compared with Teachers’ Salaries, per 
Pupil in Average Daily Attendance ........ 65 

20. High School Costs — Cities, Villages over 4,500, and Union School Districts 

— State of New York, 1921-1922, Salaries of Regular High School Teachers 
by Subject and Year of Course, per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance. 66 

21. Communities of State of New York — Year Ending July 31, 1922, Salary 

Costs of Instruction in Evening Home-Making Education per Student per 
Clock Hour ............ 69 

22. Evening Industrial Education Costs — Selected Communities of State of New 

York — Year Ending July 31, 1922, Salary Costs of Instruction in Evening 
Industrial Education per Student per Clock Hour ..... 69 

23. Evening School Costs — Selected Communities of State of New York — Year 

Ending July 31, 1922, Salary Costs of Instruction in Evening Schools per 
Student per Clock Hour ...71 


24. Higher Education Costs and Property Valuations — State of New York, 1910, 
1915, 1920, Expenses for Higher Education, and the Value of Property 
Owned and Used by Higher Education Institutions (Private Institutions, 
Public Institutions Other than Teacher Training Institutions, and State 


Scholarships).72 

25. Cost of Teacher Training in Tax-supported Institutions — State of New York, 

1921, Current Expenses of Teacher Training.74 

25A Digest of Teachers’ Minimum Salary Law — State of New York, According 

to Education Law, Revised to July 1, 1923 (Article 33-b) ... 75 

25B Median (Middle-Case) Salaries Actually Paid the Public School Teachers and 

Principals in Cities and Villages — State of New York, 1922-1923 . . 77 


25C Median (Middle-Case) Salaries of Rural Public School Teachers and Princi¬ 
pals — States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, 

1922-1923 .. 78 

26. Public Education — Cash Disbursements for Capital Outlay, 1910-1922, 
Classified by Common Schools (Including High Schools), Normal Schools 
and Colleges, and General Administration, for Years Ending July 31, State 
and Local — State of New York 


81 



LIST OF TABLES 


XI 


TABLE 

NUMBER 

27. Age of School Buildings — City of New York, 1800-1922 . 

28. School Buildings City of New York —- Date of Construction, and Age in 

1921, of Certain Typical Buildings. 

29. School Buildings City of New York — Date of Construction, and Age in 

1910, of Certain Typical Buildings ...... 

30. Rural School Buildings — State of New York — Distribution of One- to Four- 

Teacher School Buildings by Date of Construction. 

31. One- to Four-Teacher Rural School Buildings — State of New York — Date 

of Construction, and Age in 1920, of Certain Typical Buildings 

32. One- to Four-Teacher Rural School Buildings — State of New York — Date 

of Construction, and Age in 1910, of Certain Typical Buildings 

33. Computed Interest Rates on Issues of Long-Term School Bonds — State of 

New York, 1910-1921. 

34. Type of Construction of School Buildings in Certain Districts — State of New 

York, Reported in 1922 . 

35. Total Revenue for Public Education, Classified by Political Divisions Supply¬ 

ing the Funds, for Years Ending July 31, 1910-1922, State and Local — 
State of New York ....... 

36. Amount and Basis of Federal Subventions for Education in the State of New 

York, 1921 ............. 

37. Amount and Basis of State Subventions for Education — State of New York, 

1922 . 

38. Federal and State Subventions for Support of Public Education — State of 

New York, 1910-1922, for Years Ending July 31. 

39. Total Revenue for Public Education, Classified According to Fiscal Charac¬ 

ter of the Sources — State of New York, 1910-1922, for Years Ending 
July 31. 


PAGE 

83 

84 

85 

85 

86 
86 
89 
91 

93 

95 

99 

102 


104 


40. Total Gross Outstanding Bonded Indebtedness for Education — State of New 

York, 1910-1922 . 

41. Total Taxes for Education in the State of New York, Classified by Political 

Divisions, 1910-1922, for Years Ending July 31. 

42. Full Value of Taxable Real Estate in the State of New York and Estimated 

Income of the People of the State of New York, 1910-1922 

43. Cash Disbursements for Public Education Compared with Real Estate Values 

and Estimated Income (on Basis of the Number of Children between Ages 
of 5 and 17 Inclusive) State of New York, 1910-1922 .... 

44. Taxes for Public Education in the State of New York Compared with Taxes 

for Other Purposes, 1910, 1915, and 1920 . 

45. Net Expenditures (Cash Disbursements) of State and Local Governments, 

Classified According to Purpose — State of New York, 1910, 1915, and 
1920 . 

46. Comparison of Real Estate Valuations per Child of School Age with Expendi¬ 

tures and Sources of Revenue per Child of School Age — State of New York, 
1920 . 

47. Comparison of Real Estate Valuations per Child of School Age with Expendi¬ 

tures and Revenue per Child of School Age — Ranks on Basis of Middle 
Case in Each Group — State of New York, 1920 ..... 


105 

107 

132 

137 

150 

153 

164 


165 



LIST OF TABLES 


• • 

Xll 

TABLE 
NUMBER 

48. Distribution of Significant Data with Reference to Economic Resources and 

School Expenditures for the City of New York and for the Counties of the 
State of New York ........... 

49. Income, Full Value of Taxable Real Estate, and “Index of Economic Re¬ 

sources” per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance, per Child of School Age 
and per Teacher, for the City of New York and for the Counties of the 
State of New York, 1921 .......... 

50. Relationship between Total Taxable Income and Full Value of Real Estate 

by Counties — State of New York, 1921 

51. Sources of Revenue for School Purposes, Median Percentage of Receipts from 

Each of Five Sources, 1920 ......... 

52. Differences Found between Cities Having Independent and Dependent 

Boards of Education in Terms of Certain Objective Measures, 275 Amer¬ 
ican Cities Reporting for the Year 1919-1920 ...... 

53. Gross Bonded Debt for Education Compared with Full Value of Taxable 

Real Estate, Full Value of School Property and Bonded Debt for All Pur¬ 
poses — Cities, Villages, and Towns — State of New York, 1920 

54. Ratio of Net Indebtedness to Total Value of School Property — State of 

New York, 1920 ........... 

55. Bonded Debt per Child of School Age — State of New York, 1920 


PAGE 

167 

168 
169 
179 

182 

188 

189 

189 



LIST OF DIAGRAMS 


DIAGRAM 

NUMBER 

A Percentage Increase in the Cost of Tax-supported Education Related to Per¬ 
centage Increase in Population, Taxes, Money Income, and Real Estate 
Values — State of New York, 1910-1922, Figured on 1910 as a Base from 
Data in Table B .. 

1. The Educational Program of the State of New York as Organized under the 

Statutes and Regents’ Rulings, 1921. 

2. Cash Disbursements for Public School Sites, Buildings, and Equipment, 1910- 

1922, for Years Ending July 31, State and Local — State of New York, 
Based on Data in Table 2, Column 1 ....... 

3. Total Cost of Public Education, 1910-1922 (Current Expenses plus Plant 

Costs) for Years Ending July 31, State and Local — State of New York, 
(Figures in Millions of Dollars) Based on Data in Tables 2, 3, and 4 

4. Elementary School Costs — Cities, Villages over 4,500, and Union School 

Districts, Current Expenses per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance — 
State of New York, 1921, Based on Data in Tables 7, 8, and 9 . 

5. High School Costs — Cities, Villages over 4,500, and Union School Districts, 

Current Expenses per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance — State of New 
York, 1921, Based on Data in Table 18 ...... 

6. Collection and Distribution of State and Local Taxes — State of New York, 

for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1922, Total Collected for This Period 
$563,388,591 . 

7. Annual Cash Disbursements, 1910-1922, and Estimated Annual Cash Dis¬ 

bursements, 1922-1930 — for Public Education —State of New York 

8. Variations in Full Value of Taxable Real Estate, Total Income of the People 

of the State, and Total Cash Disbursements for Public Education — State 
of New York, 1910-1922, Based on Tables 4 and 42. 

9. Variations in the Level of Retail Prices Compared with the Variations in Cash 

Disbursements for Public Education — State of New York, 1910-1922, 
Based on 1910 as 100, Using Data in Table 4 and Footnote 1, Page 136 

10. Variations in Full Value of Real Estate, in Income and in School Expendi¬ 

tures, per Child of School Age — State of New York, 1910-1922, Based on 
1910 as 100, Using Data from Table 43. 

11. Taxes for Education Compared with Taxes for Other Purposes — State of 

New York, 1910, 1915, and 1920, Based on Table 44. 

12. Net Expenditures (Cash Disbursements) of State and Local Governments in 

Millions of Dollars — Classified According to Purpose — State of New 
York, 1910, 1915, and 1920, Based on Table 45. 


PAGE 

16 

24 

32 

37 

47 

% 

64 

109 

121 

133 

135 

139 

152 

154 


xui 














SUMMARY 


FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE 

STATE OF NEW YORK 


SUMMARY 

Purpose of the Educational Finance Inquiry. — This volume represents 
the results of the efforts of the Educational Finance Inquiry Commission 
to assemble and to interpret the facts relating to the present expenditures 
for the several grades and institutions of public education in the State of 
New York ; and the relation of these facts to expenditures for other public 
purposes and to economic resources, and to describe and explain the tech¬ 
niques devised for the investigation so that workers might apply them in 
other states. A detailed outline of the whole work is given in the Introduc¬ 
tion, pages 19 to 21. The state’s educational program, as far as it affects 
school finance, is represented in the diagram and the descriptions contained 
in Chapter II. 

Population of the State. — In 1921, the population of the state numbered 
approximately ten and a half millions, of whom more than half lived in the 
City of New York. The distribution is as follows: 


In City of New York .54% 

In cities of 100,000 to 1,000,000 . 12 

In cities of 25,000 to 100,000 .7 

In cities of 5,000 to 25,000 .. 7 

In cities of 2,500 to 5,000 .3 

In remainder of the state. 17 

100 

Administration and Control of Public Education. — The control of public 
education throughout the state is vested in the legislature. Under the 


Constitution, the legislature must provide “a system of free common 
schools wherein all children of the state may be educated,” and may in¬ 
crease, modify, or diminish the corporate powers of the regents who, under 
the name of the University of the State of New \ ork, act as a state board of 
education. 

The board of regents and other state officials exercise general supervision 
over all public education within the state. The state, also, through its 
officials, carries on certain educational activities directly, such as colleges 
of agriculture, veterinary science, forestry, ceramics, teacher training insti¬ 
tutions, a nautical school, state library and museum, and an extensive 

3 









4 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


scholarship system for college students. However, the administration 
and direct control of all elementary and secondary schools, and of most 
other educational activities, have been delegated by the legislature to 
the local authorities and are exercised principally through local boards of 
education. 

School Enrolment, Pupils, and Teachers. — For the school year 1921 
the total enrolment of pupils in all public and private (tax-supported and 
non-tax-supported) schools, colleges, and universities was about 2,284,000. 
Of these, approximately 1,960,000, or 86 per cent, were enrolled in public 
schools and educational institutions and the remaining 324,000, or 14 per 
cent, were enrolled in parochial or other non-tax-supported schools or 
educational institutions. The proportions varied in different parts of the 
school system. About 85 per cent of kindergarten and elementary school 
children and only about 25 per cent of higher education students were in 
tax-supported schools or institutions. 

In 1920, according to figures and estimates furnished by the State De¬ 
partment, approximately 76,300 teachers were employed in the State of 
New York. Of these, nearly 60,000 were employed in public schools and 
other educational institutions, and nearly 17,000 were employed in parochial 
or other non-tax-supported institutions. 

The Total Cost of Public Education and Its Growth. — The total state 
and local cash disbursements for public education in the State of New York 
in the fiscal year ending July 31, 1921, were $175,480,0034 Of this 
amount $148,115,510, 2 or 84.4 per cent, was for current expenses of operat¬ 
ing the schools, $6,578,355, 3 or 3.7 per cent, was for interest on funded debt, 
and $20,786,138, 3 or 11.9 per cent, was for new plant (sites or buildings). 

The annual accrued economic cost of the public school system (being 
current expenses of operation plus estimated depreciation of plant and 
computed interest on present value of plant) was $167,752,459 1 for the 
fiscal year ending July 1, 1921. Estimated on the basis shown on page 82, 
the accrued economic cost of education in the private and parochial and 
other non-tax-supported institutions, including higher education, was 
$51,983,255, and the aggregate accrued economic cost of both public and 
private education for the school year 1920-1921 was $219,735,714. 

The increases for public education from 1910 to 1921, measured in actual 
dollars spent, were: 

Total or aggregate cash disbursements, from $59,626,228 to $175,480,0034 or 194 per 
cent. 

Current expenses, from $47,521,058 to $148,115,510, 2 or 212 per cent. 

Plant expenditures, from $12,105,170 to $27,364,493, 3 or 126 per cent. 

Buildings and sites, from $7,923,152 3 to $20,786,138, or 162 per cent. 

Interest on funded debt, from $4,182,018 3 to $6,578,355, or 57 per cent. 

Annual accrued economic cost, from $57,781,217 1 to $167,752,459, or 190 per cent. 

1 Tab’s 4. 2 Table 1. a Table 2. 


SUMMARY 


5 


During this period of twelve years covered by these figures, school ex¬ 
penditures were affected by two factors which should be given due con¬ 
sideration. First, there was, of course, a radical change in the purchasing 
power of the dollar. This change, as measured by what is probably the 
most accurate index for measuring the dollar of school expenditure, was a 
decrease in purchasing power of about 51 per cent. 1 Second, there were 
increases in the number of pupils educated, and in extensions of the cur¬ 
riculum. The number of pupils enrolled in the public elementary schools 
increased about 19 per cent, and the number of pupils enrolled in public 
high schools in the state, about 72 per cent, while the whole population 
increased only about 15 per cent in this period. During this period com¬ 
pulsory continuation schools have been established. The health service 
has been developed. Junior high schools have been organized in many 
communities and the curriculum of the elementary school has been en¬ 
riched. 

Of the total cash disbursements for public education in 1921, $167,- 

967.249. 2 or 95.7 per cent, were for elementary and high schools, $5,483,- 

503. 2 or 3.1 per cent, for normal schools and colleges, and $2,029,251, 2 or 

1.2 per cent, for miscellaneous general costs (chiefly for the State Depart¬ 
ment of Education). In 1910, the corresponding percentages were 95.1, 
2.5, and 2.4. 

The increases in actual dollars spent from 1910 to 1921 were: 


Elementary and high schools, from $56,710,750 to $167,967,249, 2 or 196 per cent. 
Normal schools and colleges, from $1,491,874 to $5,483,503, 2 or 268 per cent. 
Miscellaneous general costs, from $1,423,604 2 to $2,029,251, 3 or 43 per cent. 


Current Expenses of Public Education Analyzed. — The Inquiry has 

developed and tested extensively a simple but very useful formula for 
allocating to different parts of the school system their proper shares of 
current operating expense. This formula requires for calculation only the 
items of total current expense, and the total and subtotals of teachers’ 
salaries corresponding to the parts indicated. 4 

By means of this formula current expenses per pupil in average daily 
attendance were calculated for various groups of school communities foi 
different years. Such calculations covered elementary schools, high 
schools, and kindergartens as well as subject and grade costs within the 
elementary schools and subject costs within the high schools. The new 
methods of classification and calculation devised for this purpose could be 
advantageously applied in many other states. 

The formula could not be applied to costs of evening schools, which were 
figured on a per-pupil clock-hour basis with teachers’ salaries only, and of 


i See note 1, p. 136. 

3 The amount in actual dollars spent was much larger 
year, because of unusual plant expenditures. 


2 Table 5. 

in this than in either the preceding or succeeding 
i P. 42. 


6 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


teacher training and higher education, which could be computed only on a 
yearly basis. 

Practically all the items of current expenses are of such a nature that 
brief summarization is impossible. Details are given in Chapter IV. It 
is, however, worth noting here that in all communities and elementary 
school grades, the time or money devoted to the so-called fundamentals — 
English, arithmetic, and the social studies — is usually two-thirds or more 
of the total. 1 The cost of teachers and supervisors of special subjects in 
the grades is almost negligible in the cost of a child’s education for the 
whole elementary school period. 2 

Teachers’ Salaries . 3 — Teachers’ salaries in the state for certain kinds of 
positions in certain types of communities, and for the larger cities are on 
the whole above typical salaries for such work in the entire country. But 
teachers’ salaries in the state are in general distinctly below what might be 
expected of the State of New York’s resources. The available facts indicate 
that the public school teachers outside the largest cities are not so well paid 
as they are in a number of other states with which New York is usually 
compared. 

Plant Costs of Public Education. — The cash disbursements for capital 
outlay (sites, buildings, and equipment) for all public education increased 
in actual dollars spent from $7,923,152 4 in 1910 to $20,786,138 4 in 1921, or 
162 per cent. Nearly all of this was for elementary and high schools, the 
amount for these increasing from $7,130,568 4 in 1910 to $20,652,914 4 in 
1921, or 190 per cent. 

The capital outlays for normal schools and colleges, and for general state 
administration, are extremely variable, going up or down irregularly. The 
only feasible summary of these capital outlays is to state that for the twelve 
years from 1910 to 1921, the amount of capital outlay in dollars spent for 
normal schools and colleges was $3,726,005, 4 or an average of $310,500 per 
year. The similar total for general state administration was $3,990,829, 
but most of this was in connection with the Education Building at Albany 
and $3,714,142, or 93 per cent of it, occurred in the four years 1910 
to 1913. 4 

Much of the school plant now in service is very old and distinctly below 
the standards of construction considered satisfactory, as is shown by the 
statistics given in Chapter V of the ages of buildings and types of con¬ 
struction. 

Present and Probable Future Cost of All Education in the State. — In 

1921, the aggregate accrued economic cost of all education in the state was 
as follows: 5 


i P. 56. 

* Table 26. 


2 Table 16. 
6 P. 116. 


3 P. 73. 


SUMMARY 


7 


The public school system including tax-supported 

higher education . 

Private and parochial elementary and secondary 

schools. 

Non-tax-supported institutions of higher education 
Total. 


$167,752,459 

28,161,910 

23,821,345 

$219,735,714 


This total may be otherwise analyzed as follows: 


Current expenses . . . 

Interest (including imputed) 
Depreciation .... 

Total. 


$193,056,250 

18,500,506 

8,178,958 

$219,735,714 


If certain commonly accepted standards were to be made to prevail 
throughout the state, and if certain legal requirements were to be fully 
enforced, there would be an additional annual cost of at least $21,637,067 1 
to be met by taxation. 

Estimates prepared on the basis set forth on pages 120-123 indicate that 
the costs in 1925 and 1930 will amount to at least the following sums: 


Cash disbursements for public education . 
Total annual accrued economic cost for all 
schools in the state, whether tax-supported 

or not. 

Total annual accrued economic cost for all 
schools in the state, if certain legal require¬ 
ments and certain standards are observed 


1925 

$207,400,000 

251,656,000 

273,293,000 


1930 

$226,400,000 

270,656,000 

292,293,000 


Sums Raised for Public Education, Classified by Sources. — In 1921 the 

following sums were raised for public education: 


State Sources 
From taxation 

For subventions. 

For expenditures made directly by state . . 

Total. 

From income on permanent fund (for subventions) 

Total from state sources. 

Federal Sources 

From grants of federal government. 

Local Sources 

From local taxation. 

From miscellaneous sources . 

From borrowing and bond sales. 

Total including borrowing and bond sales . . . 

All Sources 

Total exclusive of borrowing and bond sales . . 

Total including borrowing and bond sales . . . 


$33 116,103 2 ’ 3 
6,016,204 2 

$39,132,307 
382,403 3 

$39,514,710 4 

$672,158 2 

$118,325,781 4 * 3 
777,209 3 
22,937,283 5 

$142,040,273 

$159,289,858 4 
$182,227,141 


In the twelve years from 1910 to 1921 inclusive, the total revenues applied 
to public education from all sources except borrowing, were $1,024,339,286, 3 

i p. 120. 2 Table 38. 3 Table 39. 4 Table 35. 

6 From unpublished data of Headquarters Staff. 




















8 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


which was $76,815,926 more than the cash disbursements, amounting to 
$947,523,360, 1 for all purposes except for new buildings, equipment, and 
sites. In this period the cash disbursements for new buildings, equip¬ 
ment, and sites were $123,908,274, 2 which was $73,718,945 more than the 
increase, amounting to $50,189,329, 3 in bonded indebtedness. 

State Subventions to Localities. — About three-fourths of the money 
required to support local schools in the state is raised by local taxation. 4 
The remainder is paid by the state to the local governments in the form of 
subventions out of state revenues. 5 The trend is clearly toward increased 
state and national support. Thus while local support has increased about 
two and one-half times, state support has increased five times, and federal 
support, ten times. In 1910 local political divisions supplied 86 per cent 
of the support; in 1922 they supplied only 77 per cent. 6 However, even 
with its tenfold increase in twelve years, the federal share now is less than 
one-half of one per cent of the total support of public education in the 
state. 

The increases were made from time to time in the state subventions be¬ 
cause of various facts and conditions. As a result, the aggregate state aid 
received by a locality is not fixed according to any rule based on a single 
well-defined principle. Instead, thirteen different standards are used. Of 
these standards, those affecting teachers in general determine the distribu¬ 
tion of 91 per cent of the state subventions and those affecting special kinds 
of teachers determine about 4 per cent. 7 

Almost all the state aid is distributed primarily on a per-teacher quota 
basis which varies with the classification of the school district, and in the 
case of one of the quotas, with the assessed property valuation in the dis¬ 
trict. Approximately one-half of this state aid is entirely unaffected by the 
richness of the local resources back of the teacher, and the portion which is 
so affected is allocated in a manner which favors both the very rich and the 
very poor localities at the expense of those moderately well off. 8 

The foregoing statement is the conclusion from a study of the full value of 
real estate per child of school age in various districts, the only measure of 
wealth available for comparing districts. 9 But the unsatisfactory nature 
of the present state-aid provisions in this respect would continue even if the 
county were made the unit of administration and support of schools, no 
matter whether wealth be estimated by full value of real estate, taxable 
income, or any index combining the two on any reasonable basis. 10 

The present forces in the state are tending toward the equivalent of a 
state educational system supported by taxes of uniform weight throughout 
the state. This is the logical conclusion of the widely accepted principle of 
“ equality of educational opportunity.” 11 

1 Tables 1 and 2. 2 Table 2. 3 Table 40. 4 Table 41. 6 Table 38. 6 Table 35. 

7 Table 37. 8 p p . 162-166. » Table 46. W Table 49. u P. 173. 


SUMMARY 


9 


Bonded Debt. — The total gross outstanding indebtedness for public 
schools in the state increased from $135,981,844 in 1910 to $221,835,687 in 
1922. 1 This is an increase of 63 per cent as compared with a 229 per cent 
increase in cash disbursements, 2 or a 235 per cent increase in current ex¬ 
penses 3 for the same period. Of this total indebtedness about two-thirds 
was incurred by the City of New York, but its share has declined from about 
87 per cent in 1910 to about 69 per cent in 1922. 4 

In 1920 the school bonded debt was 56 per cent of the value of school 
sites and buildings, or 35 per cent, if cash balances are subtracted. 5 

The school bonded debt varies from 1.4 per cent of the full value of real 
estate in the City of New York to 1.1 per cent in other cities, .5 per cent in 
villages and towns, and nothing in rural areas. 6 

The school bonded debt varies from 8 per cent of total debt for all pur¬ 
poses in the City of New York to 1.8 per cent in other cities and 27.8 per 
cent in villages and towns. 7 

The City of New York is more heavily bonded for school purposes than 
any other city 8 although there has been a relative decline in the last twelve 
years because of little school building in that city. 9 The village and rural 
districts have utilized their credit relatively little in financing their building 
operations. 10 

In the last twelve years, for the state as a whole, half the plant construc¬ 
tion costs have been paid from current receipts. 11 

Taxation in 1921. — The aggregate federal taxes levied in 1921 in the 
United States amounted to $4,902,925,000, 12 being $45.79 per capita of 
population. 

Federal taxes paid by the people of the State of New York in 1921 
amounted to $979,210,729, 13 or $93.15 per capita of the people of the state. 

New York State taxes amounted to $139,724,079; 14 local taxes in the 
state to $385,050,572 ; 15 and the total state and local taxes to $524,774,651, 
or $49.92 per capita of the people of the state. 

The aggregate of all federal, state, and local taxes paid by the people of 
the state amounted to $1,503,985,380, or $143.07 per capita of the people 
of the state. 

Of the aggregate state and local taxes in the State of New York, $382,- 
043,443, or 72.8 per cent, were direct taxes on real estate. The estimated 
full value of real estate in the state amounted to $16,395,6/9,190, 16 and the 
taxes on real estate amounted to 2.3 per cent of its full value. 

1 Table 40. 2 Table 4. 3 Table 1. 4 P. 105. 5 P. 189. 6 Tables 53, 55. 

2 Table 53. 8 P. 189. 9 P- 105. 10 P. 189. u P. 106. 

12 Report United States Secretary of the Treasury. 

13 Estimated as follows: Income and excess profits taxes on basis of collections in the state; all other 
taxes estimated by assigning to New York that proportion of the other federal taxes which New York’s 
population bears to the total population of the United States. 

14 State Comptroller’s Report. 

1 5 State Tax Commission’s Report. 

is State Tax Commission’s Report, 1921, page 60. 


10 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


The aggregate of the individual incomes of the people of the state, as 
estimated by the National Bureau of Economic Research, was, at its 1919 
ratio of New York to total income of the country, $7,500,000,000. 

The aggregate of the taxable incomes of the people of the state for 1921, 
as shown by the state income tax returns, was $3,215,905,958. 1 

The aggregate of the federal, state, and local taxes paid by the people of 
the state (as shown above) amounted to 20.1 per cent of the aggregate 
incomes of the people for 1921, as estimated by the National Bureau of 
Economic Research, and to 46.8 per cent of their aggregate reported taxable 
incomes for 1921. 

Revenue System. 2 — Of each $100 spent for public education in the 
state (disregarding borrowings), $99 are raised by taxation. The 100th 
dollar is supplied by income from permanent state school funds, tuition, 
fees, and the like. 

The state does not earmark certain taxes for state revenues for education, 
but pays its subventions out of whatever revenues it has. 

The revenue system consists of nine major taxes which with their names 
and proportionate yields for 1922 may be tabulated as follows: 3 


Name of Tax 

Per Cent of Total 
State and Local 
Revenue for All 
Purposes Derived 

Per Cent of State 
Revenue for All 
Purposes Derived 

1. Property taxes. 

77 

20 

2. Personal income taxes. 

5 

13 

3. Business taxes . 

11 

40 

(a) Business corporation income tax 

— 

— 

(b) Bank stock tax. 

-- 

— 

(c) Stock transfer tax. 

— 

— 

0 d ) Miscellaneous business taxes 

— 

— 

4. Miscellaneous taxes. 

7 

27 

(a) Motor vehicle tax. 

— 

— 

(b) Inheritance tax. 

— 

— 

(c) Mortgage record tax .... 

— 

— 

( d ) Excise, insurance premium tax, 



boxing exhibition, and motion- 



picture taxes. 

— 

— 


100 

100 


The property taxes are levied on real estate and certain kinds of personal 
property. The general property tax is now 98 per cent a real estate tax 
and 94 per cent a local tax. The state’s part in this is very elastic, varying 
from nothing in 1910, 1914, 1916 to 31J millions in 1922. The general prop¬ 
erty tax is a variable and diminishing source of state revenue but a constant 
and increasing source of local revenue and of school support. The control 

1 State Tax Commission figures not yet published. 

2 The statements and data for this section are derived from Chapter VII. 

3 Calculated from the data of Diagram 6. 



















SUMMARY 


11 


of the amount of school tax to be levied in most sections rests with the local 
board of education (in a few cities, with the city government) or, beyond 
certain limits, with the electorate. Most of the local boards are popularly 
elected. 

The 'personal income tax applies to the total net income of residents of 
the state and to certain types of income arising within the state for non¬ 
residents. The yield is equally divided between the state and the counties 
on ratio of assessed valuation of real estate in the county to the similar figure 
for the entire state. The definition of income is much like that of the 
Federal Revenue act. 

Of the business taxes , the receipts of the business corporation income tax 
are divided on the basis of two-thirds to the state and one-third to the 
localities where the tangible property is located; the receipts of the bank 
stock tax are divided so that those from state and national banks go to the 
localities and those from other banking institutions go to the state; the 
receipts of the stock transfer tax go to the state; the miscellaneous business 
taxes go to the state. 

Of the miscellaneous taxes, the receipts of the motor vehicle tax are 
divided in the proportions of three-fourths for the state and one-fourth of 
the collections from the residents of a county to that county; the inherit¬ 
ance tax goes to the state ; the mortgage recording tax is split half and half 
between the state and the localities; the proceeds of the excise, insurance 
premium tax, boxing exhibition and motion-picture taxes go to the state; 
other miscellaneous taxes, consisting of special assessments for local im¬ 
provements, miscellaneous licenses, fees, and the like, go to the localities. 

New York is one of the few states which has faced its fiscal problem 
squarely and taken steps to put its system of taxation into harmony with 
the changed conditions which have come about in the last few decades. As a 
result, its system is neither so bad as to operate as a serious limitation in the 
present school-finance problem, nor yet so good but that certain important 
changes are not desirable. Suggestions by close students of taxation 
for such changes will be found in the summaries of the Report of the Joint 
Legislative Committee on Taxation and Retrenchment, and of the “ Model 
Plan ” prepared by the Committee of the National Tax Association, given 
on pages 158-160. 

Economic Resources of the State Compared with Educational Expendi¬ 
tures._From 1910 to 1922, the expenditures for public education per 

child of school age increased nearly five times as rapidly as real estate values 
and more than twice as rapidly as the income of the people of the state. 1 
This increased cost of education was not for identical service. Instead, it 
represents an expanded program with many more children attracted to and 
held in the upper grades, and, proportionate to population, over 60 per cent 

i Table 43. 


12 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


more in the high schools alone. 1 In both of these divisions the cost per 
pupil is much higher than in the lower grades. 2 Making allowance for the 
changing value of the dollar on the assumption that dollars of school ex¬ 
penditures varied in value in an identical manner with the retail price index 
presented in the text, 3 the cost of providing one day’s schooling for each 
child in the public elementary and high schools combined increased only 
37 per cent from 1910 to 1922. 3 * 4 

The Economic Limitations of Educational Expenditures. — On this topic 
Chapter X discusses two fundamental propositions: 

First, that education is necessary not only to the economic welfare of a 
community, but to its very existence. 5 

Second, that to increase the support of public education means funda¬ 
mentally that the aggregate economic resources of the community must be 
increased, or that support must be diverted to education from some other 
object to which it is now devoted; and that diversion always involves 
abstinence from objects formerly consumed, and, often, because of the 
specialized character of economic resources, involves a degree of waste. 6 

On the purely practical side, the increase of educational support and the 
diversion to it of revenues now used for other purposes depend upon 
possible or probable changes in the proportions of total taxes and of all 
income of the people, devoted to education and to other governmental 
needs. Upon such changes the following facts throw light: 

From 1910 to 1920 state and local taxes for education only doubled, 
while total taxes for all purposes about quadrupled. The federal, state, and 
local taxes in the State of New York for all purposes were in 1920 over twelve, 
three, and one and two-thirds times respectively what they were in 1910. 7 

The percentages of total taxes levied by federal, state, and local govern¬ 
ments in the State of New York, and the percentage of the amount raised 
by each devoted to educational purposes varied considerably from 1910 to 
1920. The variations may be easily shown by means of the popular device 
of the “ tax dollar ” or dollar of total taxes for all purposes, which for 1910 
and 1920 was disposed to the nearest cent as follows : 7 



1910 Tax Dollar 

1920 Tax Dollar 


Education 

All Purposes 

Education 

All Purposes 

Federal Taxes. 


$.19 

8 

$.60 

State Taxes. 

$.02 

.11 

$.01 

.09 

Local Taxes. 

.15 

.70 

.08 

.31 

Total. 

$.17 

$1.00 

$.09 

$1.00 


1 Footnote, p. 138. 2 Tables 7, 8, 9, 15, and 18. 3 Footnote 1, p. 136. 4 Table B. 

6 Pp. 141-144. 6 Pp. 146-155. 7 Table 44. 8 Less than | cent. 


























SUMMARY 


13 


Of the total state and local net expenditures (cash disbursements), for 
all governmental purposes, education received 16 per cent in 1910 and 19.3 
per cent in 1920. But expenditures for charities and corrections and for 
health and sanitation increased much faster. 1 

In 1920, 13.49 per cent of the estimated income of the people of the State 
of New York was taken to finance activities collectively administered under 
government control. Taxes for education required about one-ninth of this, 
or 1.25 per cent of such estimated income. 2 

Problems of Organization and Administration. — The work of the In¬ 
quiry indicates that the major problems of organization and administration 
in the State of New York, as far as the financing of public education is con¬ 
cerned, are as follows: 

1. The attainment of larger units of school administration and sup¬ 
port. 3 

2. The establishment of better budgetary procedure 10 and account¬ 
ing 4 for school systems. 

3. The establishment of better methods of financing plant outlays. 5 

4. Better provision for fire prevention, and for insurance of school 
buildings. 6 

5. Codification of the education law. 7 

6. Determination of the relative advantages of fiscally independent 
and fiscally dependent school boards. 8 


A study covering the entire country 8 shows conclusively that the sep¬ 
arate financing of municipal school systems must be considered on other 
ground than that of the cost to the community since the costs of schools 
administered under the dependent and independent organizations are 
approximately equal. 9 

Data for Purposes of Comparison. — Tables A and B give various sta¬ 
tistical comparisons for fiscal data on schools for the years 1910, 1915, 1920, 
and 1922. 

Table A presents the original figures in actual dollars. Table B shows 
more accurately the comparisons between the figures for the different years 
by giving the percentage relationships to 1910 as a base. Diagram A gives 
graphically the main features of Table B. In the preparation of this dia¬ 
gram, fluctuations between the specified years were disregarded and, there¬ 
fore, straight lines were drawn from each year to the succeeding one. 


i Table 45. 2 P- 151. 3 See Chapter XII. 4 P. 187. 

5 P. 188. 6 P- 190- 7 P - !9l. 

s The full account of this study, entitled “The Fiscal Administration of City School Systems,” will 
appear as Volume V of the publications of the Educational Finance Inquiry. 

9 P. 183. 

P. 184. 


14 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


TABLE A 

AMOUNTS OF VARIOUS ITEMS — STATE OF NEW YORK, 1910, 

1915, 1920, AND 1922 

Expressed in Actual Dollars 


For Years Ending June 30 



1910 

1915 

1920 

1922 

1. Estimated aggregate money 
income of the people in 
billions (page 132) . . . 

$3.9 

$4.5 

$9.1 

$7.5 4 

1 a. Same per capita of popula¬ 
tion in dollars .... 

$428 

$462 

$876 

$705 4 

2. Full value of taxable real 
estate in billions (page 132) 

• 

$10.8 

$12.9 

$14.7 

$17.3 

2 a. Same per capita of popula¬ 
tion in dollars .... 

$1185 

$1323 

$1415 

$1626 

3. Rate of tax per thousand on 
full value of real estate 6 . 

$17.23 1 

$17.08 

$21.74 

$25.60 2 

4. Aggregate state and local 
taxes all purposes in thou¬ 
sands 3 . 

$262,941 

$275,473 

$487,730 

$563,389 

4 a. Same per capita of popula¬ 
tion in dollars .... 

$28.85 

$28.26 

$46.96 

$52.95 

5. Aggregate total federal, 
state, and local taxes in 
thousands 3 . 

$323,986 

$349,512 

$1,227,301 


5 a. Same per capita of popula¬ 
tion in dollars .... 

$35.55 

$35.85 

$118.18 


6. Aggregate cash expenditures 
for tax-supported educa¬ 
tion in thousands (page 38) 

$59,626 

$84,842 

$117,344 

$196,034 

6 a. Same per capita of popula¬ 
tion in dollars .... 

$6.54 

$8.70 

$11.30 

$18.43 

6 b. Same for furnishing one 
day’s schooling for one 
child, elementary and 
high schools combined, in 
dollars 5 . 

$.27 

$.33 

$.43 

$.66 


1 1911. 2 1921. 3 Table 44. 4 Calendar year 1921. 

5 Computed from cash-disbursement figures of Table 5, and aggregate days of attendance from reports 
of the United States Bureau of Education. 

6 “Report of Special Joint Committee on Taxation and Retrenchment, March 1, 1922,” p. 49. 


















SUMMARY 


15 


TABLE B. 

PERCENTAGE RELATIONSHIPS OF VARIOUS ITEMS—STATE OF NEW 
YORK — EXPRESSED IN ACTUAL DOLLARS, TO 1910 AS A BASE 

Computed from the Data of Table A 



1910 

1915 

1920 

1922 

1. Estimated aggregate money income of the 
people in billions. 

100 

115 

233 

192 3 

1 a. Same per capita of population in dollars 

100 

108 

205 

165 3 

2. Full value of taxable real estate in billions 

100 

119 

136 

160 

2 a. Same per capita of population in dollars 

100 

112 

119 

137 

3. Rate of tax per thousand on full value of 
real estate. 

100 1 

99 

126 

149 2 

4. Aggregate state and local taxes all pur¬ 
poses in thousands. 

100 

105 

185 

214 

4 a. Same per capita of population in dollars 

100 

98 

163 

184 

5. Aggregate total federal, state, and local 
taxes in thousands. 

100 

108 

379 


5 a. Same per capita of population in dollars 

100 

101 

332 


6. Aggregate cash expenditures for tax-sup¬ 
ported education in thousands . . . 

100 

142 

197 

329 

6 a. Same per capita of population in dollars 

100 

133 

173 

282 

6 b. Same for furnishing one day’s schooling for 
one child, elementary and high schools 
combined, in dollars. 

100 

122 

159 

244 

7 . Population (Federal Census Estimate) 

100 

107 

114 

117 


i 19 X 1 , a 1921. 3 Calendar year 1921. 

























16 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


DIAGRAM A 

Percentage Increase in the Cost of Tax-Supported Education Related to 
Percentage Increase in Population, Taxes, Money Income, and Real 
Estate Values — State of New York, 1910-1922 

Figured on 1910 as a Base from Data in Table B 

Increase 
Per Cent 
over 

i9io 19 i 0 


1915 


1920 


1922 



■ Aggregate Total 
Federal, State, 
and Local Taxes, 
All Purposes 
(Data for 1921 
the latest 
available) 


.Aggregate Cash 
Expenditures 
for Tax- 
Supported 
Education 


■ Aggregate State 
and Local Taxes, 

All Purposes 

.Estimated Aggregate 
Money Income 
of the People 


. Full Value of 
Real Estate 

•Tax Rate per Thousand 
on Full Value of 
Real Estate 


■ Population by 
Federal Census 
Estimate 


1910 


1916 


1920 1922 























PART ONE 


THE FINANCIAL PROBLEM OF EDUCATION IN THE 

STATE OF NEW YORK 




















CHAPTER I 


INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of the Educational Finance Inquiry was defined in a mem¬ 
orandum submitted to the executive officers of the several Foundations 
which contributed to the support of the undertaking, as follows: 

“It is proposed that an Educational Finance Inquiry be organized for 
the purpose of making, in selected, typical communities and states, an 
intensive study of present expenditures for the several grades and insti¬ 
tutions of public education, and the relationships of such expenditures to 
the expenditures for other public purposes and to economic resources, as a 
basis for discovering the extent to which the free educational system of 
the country can be maintained and developed by the more complete and 
economical utilization of both present and potential sources of public rev¬ 
enue — local, state, and national.” 

The Commission was not appointed to investigate the quality of the 
education now furnished by the schools, or the character and extent of 
the education which should be furnished at public expense. The Com¬ 
mission was appointed to investigate only that part of the entire educational 
problem which relates to the cost of present-day education, and to the cost 
of carrying out fully the program which now generally prevails. 

The Commission conceived the undertaking to involve the assembling 
of a body of facts and the reasonable interpretation of them. The Inquiry 
in itself is separate and distinct from any specific practical program of 
accomplishment which may grow out of its results. The purpose is essen¬ 
tially the gathering of evidence, upon the basis of which more intelligent 
economic judgments may be formed with respect to the financing of the 
public school system. 

The program of work of the Commission, as stated in the memorandum 
already referred to, contemplated first of all an intensive study of a single 
state. It was believed that this procedure would limit the work of the 
Inquiry to an area from which tangible conclusions could be secured within 
a reasonable time, and that it would be possible to complete such a study 
within the limit of the funds made available. It was felt, as well, that such 
an intensive study would help to perfect a technique applicable to other 
states and communities. 


19 


20 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


This report attempts to analyze the financial problem of education 
in the State of New York. It is an attempt to supply not a solution of the 
problem, but an analysis which should prove a substantial contribution to¬ 
wards a solution. The aim throughout has been to state fully all of the 
important pertinent facts, without attempting to draw conclusions as to 
the course of action which they seem to imply. No attempt is made to 
pass judgment on questions of educational policy, and every effort has been 
made to restrain comment on the facts to that minimum which will ex¬ 
plain their limitations and prevent their misinterpretation. 

The report is divided into two parts. Part I is devoted to a statement 
of (1) the educational program of the State of New York; (2) the aggre¬ 
gate costs of public education ; (3) the current expenses of public education 
analyzed by grades and subjects; (4) an analysis of the sources of revenue; 
(5) current problems of fiscal administration; (6) the total economic cost 
to the citizens of the State of New York of the maintenance of tax-sup¬ 
ported schools. 

The statement of the plan of the Educational Finance Inquiry, pre¬ 
pared at the time of its original organization, makes it clear, however, that 
the functions of the Commission are not completely discharged when it 
has prepared an exhibit setting forth these facts. The Commission was 
established to make not only “ an intensive study of present expenditures 
for the several grades and institutions of public education,” but also to 
study “ the relationships of such expenditures to the expenditures for other 
public purposes and to economic resources, as a basis for discovering the 
extent to which the free educational system of the country can be main¬ 
tained and developed by the more complete and economical utilization of 
both present and potential sources of revenue — local, state, and national.” 

In Part II is an attempt to explain what the financial problem formulated 
in Part I really means, when examined in relation to its background of eco¬ 
nomic and fiscal resources, and the governmental organization and ad¬ 
ministration. 

It is not possible in this general report to include in detail the original 
data upon which calculations are based. An attempt has been made, 
through the presentation of summary tables, to indicate not merely the 
total cost of the public school system and of its several parts, but to indi¬ 
cate, as well, the variation which occurs among the many administrative 
units within the state. Wherever the technique employed is new or unusual 
a brief statement of methods has been given. 

Throughout the report the analysis of school expenditures is in terms of 
the divisions of the school system and subjects taught. While it would be 
interesting to know just what percentages of the total cost are devoted to 
general control, instructional service, operation, maintenance, fixed charges, 
debt service, capital outlay, and auxiliary agencies, such a functional 


INTRODUCTION 


21 


analysis was not possible upon the basis of the accounts kept in the 11,224 1 
school districts in the State of New York. It is to be noted that the item 
“ teachers’ salaries ” is used throughout the study as a basic figure in 
the determination of costs. The report does not, however, attempt 
to report fully upon teachers’ salaries. Comprehensive studies in this 
field have been made in recent years on a nation-wide basis by committees 
of the National Education Association which make it possible to com¬ 
pare salaries in the State of New York with those in other parts of the 
country. 2 For this reason, it did not seem wise to spend the resources of 
the Inquiry on a teacher-salary study. 

In order to provide more detailed information for students of educational 
finance, and for those who would check the findings of the general report, 
there will be issued, as supplementary to this document, special reports on 
(1) the cost of elementary education; (2) the cost of secondary education ; 
(3) separate financing of municipal school systems. An annotated bibliog¬ 
raphy on educational finance and a nation-wide study of school expendi¬ 
tures will be issued shortly after the publication of this report. It may 
be that one or two other special studies will be added to this list before 
the work of the Commission is completed. 

Studies similar in character to that undertaken in the State of New 
York are under way for California, Illinois, and Iowa. The reports of 
these studies will, it is hoped, be published shortly. A special investigation 
of the unit cost of higher education is also in the course of preparation. 

In all tables giving data in dollars over a considerable number of years , 
the reader must guard against a false impression from not taking into 
account the fluctuating value of the dollar. The figures for this fluctuat¬ 
ing value are given in note 1 on page 136. 

1 In 1919-1920. See footnote 3, p. 162. 

2 “Teachers’ Salaries and Salary Schedules in the United States, 1918-19.” Prepared for the Commis¬ 
sion on the Emergency in Education of the National Education Association by E. S. Evenden. Pub¬ 
lished 1919. 

“Teachers’ Salaries and Salary Trends in 1923.” Report of the Salary Committee of the National 
Education Association, E. S. Evenden, Chairman. Published July, 1923. 


CHAPTER II 


THE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The educational system of the State of New York is essentially a public 
system. From the beginning the underlying theories of state responsi¬ 
bility and state authority have been developed in statute law and have been 
upheld by judicial authority. The constitution of the state obligates the 
legislature to provide for the maintenance and the support of a system of 
free common schools wherein all the children of the state may be educated. 
In consequence of this there has been developed a more or less completely 
organized educational system, supported from the public treasury and ex¬ 
tending from the kindergarten through elementary and secondary schools. 
This system further includes a variety of schools for special purposes and 
special classes, institutions for the training of teachers and for certain kinds 
of higher and professional education. Since 1784 the oversight of second¬ 
ary and higher education has been vested in a board of regents. In 1812 
the common school system was organized and the office of superintendent 
of common schools created. Since 1867 the State of New York has main¬ 
tained a system of free public education. The Board of Regents has from 
the beginning had general oversight over both the tax-supported schools 
and the non-tax-supported educational agencies organized for secondary and 
higher education within the State of New York. Since 1904 the board has 
had general supervisory powers over all educational activities of the state. 

In the year 1920 the total population of the state was 10,385,227. Of 
this total, half was in the City of New York, with its population of 5,620,048. 
Approximately 83 per cent of the people lived in places having more than 
2,500 population, while over 1,750,000 lived in smaller villages and in the 
rural areas of the state. The inquiry concerning the financing of education 
in the State of New York includes, therefore, approximately one-eleventh 
of the population of the United States and involves the problems of all 
kinds of communities from the largest city to the strictly rural area. 1 

1 There are in the State of New York 3 cities of the first class (over 175,000 population) ; 7 cities of the 
second class (50,000 to 175,000 population) ; 49 cities of the third class (below 50,000 population) ; 58 vil¬ 
lages having more than 4,500 population ; 414 union free school districts maintaining four-year high schools ; 
117 union free school districts maintaining three-year high schools; 31 union free school districts main¬ 
taining two-year high schools; 53 union free school districts maintaining one-year high schools. There 
are in addition to these school districts 9,644 rural school districts not maintaining high schools. In every 
case, the report includes data — in so far as comparable figures could be secured — for all of the city and 
village school districts. For the rural school districts, an attempt was made to secure data from the first 
numbered district in each of the supervisory districts. This gave data from a random selection of approx¬ 
imately 1,000 of the rural school districts. (All figures for 1920-1921.) 

22 


EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM OF THE STATE 


23 


The State of New York provides at public expense elementary and sec¬ 
ondary education, schools for groups needing special opportunities, train¬ 
ing schools for teachers, and in part institutions of higher education. The 
law of the state makes separate provision for the education of those under 
and those over sixteen years of age. The division at this age level is, how¬ 
ever, not hard and fast in all phases of education. Moreover, the law pro¬ 
vides for a sharp differentiation in the compulsory educational program as 
between districts of over 4,500 population employing their own superin¬ 
tendents and the smaller communities. The program as determined by 
law is shown graphically in Diagram 1. 

This diagram is explained and supplemented by the discussion of the 
various phases of the educational program given below. 

Compulsory Education. — Attendance is compulsory during all of the 
time schools are in session (minimum 180 days each year) for all children 
from seven to sixteen in communities of 4,500 or over which employ a su¬ 
perintendent of schools, unless such children over fourteen years of age are 
legally at work. In places under this size, the beginning age is eight instead 
of seven. In districts having 5,000 population or more, part-time continu¬ 
ation schools are provided for legally employed children, and for others 
not in attendance upon regular instruction in day schools, between fourteen 
and eighteen years of age. Full provision for such continuation schools is 
not required by law until September, 1925. Evening schools offering the 
common school branches and additional subjects adapted to the needs of 
students applying for instruction are required for persons over sixteen years 
of age. 

Kindergarten Education may be provided by local communities for chil¬ 
dren between the ages of four and six years. 

Secondary Education. — The age-limit requirements of the law indi¬ 
cate that the State of New York contemplates the education of children 
at public expense through the secondary school age, in high schools, or in 
continuation schools. Evidence that secondary education is an integral 
part of the state’s program is found in the fact that where pupils live in 
districts without high schools the state provides for their admission to the 
high schools of neighboring districts, and makes a payment of 850 for each 
pupil so admitted. The state maintains five schools of agriculture, one 
of agriculture and domestic science, and a nautical school, all of secondary 

grade. 

Higher Education and Teacher Training. — The State of New York 
does not provide free higher education for all who apply for it, as most 
other states do through their state universities and colleges. It does 
provide state colleges in certain practical arts, and state scholarships for 
college education. Moreover the City of New York supports two city 
colleges and a number of cities have their own training schools for teachers. 


24 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


<3 

Pt 

O 


Q 



































Enrolment 1920* — to Nearest Hundred 


EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM OF THE STATE 25 




T5 

02 

'a 

G 

o 

02 

G 

02 

a; 

bfi 

G 

• rH 

> 

-C 

CQ 



02 02 

02 02 q 

"d d o 

, ^ 3 ^ 

3 'o 02 02 02 

fi fl fl fl ® 

H H H H CC 


- 





























26 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


The state’s program is based on the assumption that most of its higher 
education will be carried on at private expense, under control exercised by 
the State Department of Education, through its examinations for the 
professions and its power to issue and revoke the charters of degree-granting 
institutions. 

However, the state supports a college of agriculture and veterinary medi¬ 
cine in Cornell University, a college of forestry in Syracuse University, a 
college of ceramics in Alfred University, and a library school in connection 
with the State Library at Albany. The City of New York, under per¬ 
missive legislation, maintains the College of the City of New York, an 
institution of collegiate grade for men, and Hunter College, an institution 
of similar grade for women. These two institutions in the City of New 
York, while comparable with the collegiate departments of the best state 
universities, do not make the full provision for graduate and professional 
work which is usual in state universities. 

The state also provides certain scholarships for higher education which, 
although substantial, do not involve public support of higher education 
to the same extent as in most other states. Seven hundred and fifty 
scholarships of an annual value of $100 each are awarded each year, valid 
for a period of four years, to residents of the State of New York taking 
college courses within the state. Thus at any one time, about three 
thousand students are aided by these scholarships. Not more than twenty 
of them may be awarded to the residents of any single assembly district. 
Originally the scholarships were adequate to cover tuition, but now they 
provide only about one-half of the tuition commonly charged. Cornell 
University, by its charter, is required to grant free tuition to one student 
from each assembly district, making a total of 150 such students. For 
the special benefit of soldiers, sailors, marines, and trained nurses, 450 
scholarships were established in the year 1919 1 at various schools to the 
value of $200 per year. Preference is given to those who are prepared for 
college, and up to 1922 no one with less than this preparation has been 
appointed. The State of New York may, therefore, be said to encourage 
certain qualified students to continue their courses in college or university, 
rather than to make general provision for free higher education. 

As a part of its program of higher education, the State of New York 
provides for the training of teachers. There are ten state normal schools, 
which in 1920 required for graduation a two-year professional course based 
on a four-year high school course. This course was lengthened to three 
years in 1922, providing training for elementary and junior high school 
teachers and teachers of special subjects. In addition to these state schools, 
the City of New York maintains three schools for training its elementary 

1 The year for which the facts are reported will in every case be designated by the year in which the 
school year closes. For example, the year 1918-1919 will be designated as the year 1919. 


EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM OF THE STATE 


27 


teachers, and in 1920 nine other cities had similar schools. A state teachers’ 
college for the training of high school teachers is maintained at Albany. 
This school offers a four-year professional course beyond high school grad¬ 
uation. In 1920 there were fifty-seven teacher-training classes for prepar¬ 
ing rural teachers, established in high schools and subsidized by the state. 

Special Education. — Districts must maintain special classes for blind, 
deaf, crippled, or otherwise physically-handicapped children, or for children 
mentally retarded three or more years, whenever there are ten or more of 
any class in the district. If there are less than ten in any one group, the 
district may contract with another district for this special education. The 
state makes provision for educating blind children and deaf mutes in state 
schools or in private institutions at state expense. 1 A blind or deaf citizen 
of the state in actual attendance at a higher institution in the state, other 
than one for the blind or deaf, may, if worthy, be allowed $300 for a 
reader or assistant. The State Department of Education is required by 
law to arrange for such therapeutic treatment as may be necessary for the 
rehabilitation of physically-handicapped persons who have registered with 
the Department of Education. It is also required to provide maintenance 
cost, during the period of actual training, for physically-handicapped per¬ 
sons registered for rehabilitation, such maintenance costs not to exceed 
$10 per week for a period not to exceed twenty weeks. 2 The state makes 
special provision for educating Indian children on reservations and dis¬ 
tributes school money to orphan asylums, just as it does to districts, in 
proportion to the number of children to be educated. 

Illiteracy and Americanization Work. — Various districts are encouraged 
to give special work for illiterates and non-English-speaking persons of sixteen 
years or over, under state supervision, and with teachers especially trained 
for the purpose. State aid is given for half the teacher’s salary up to $1,000. 

Local Adjustments. — Certain communities have the right to establish 
schools peculiarly adapted to their special needs. Two or more adjoining 
school districts may provide for the formation of a consolidated high school. 
When authorized by the voters of the area involved, city and union free 
school districts may establish general industrial, unit-trade, technical-agri¬ 
cultural, mechanic arts and home-making, practical arts, and evening vo¬ 
cational schools. The board of supervisors in each county outside of the 
City of New York may, without a vote of the people, establish a farm 
school for instruction in trades, industrial, agricultural, and home-making 
subjects for children between eight and eighteen years of age. 


1 The confused state of the education law is illustrated by the provisions governing special education. 
Even with the assistance of the officials in the State Department of Education it was found impossible to 
make a more definite statement than that which appears above with respect to the precise dividing line 
between state and local responsibility for special education. The need for a codification of the education 
law is discussed later (see p. 191). 

2 This is entirely apart from any rehabilitation work for soldiers and sailors. 


28 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


In addition to the schools maintained at public expense, the citizens 
of the state maintain other educational institutions from funds arising 
from gifts and endowments, and from the payment of fees. Of the total 
charge against the people of the state for the maintenance of education 
in the year 1921 ($220,000,000) approximately one hundred sixty-eight 
millions ($168,000,000) was a charge against the public treasury, while the 
remaining fifty-two million dollars ($52,000,000) was supplied from pri¬ 
vate sources to maintain the schools, colleges, and universities which were 
not tax-supported. 


CHAPTER III 


THE TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND ITS GROWTH 


This chapter deals only with the purely public system of education 
which in 1921 cost $167,752,459. 1 It restricts itself to aggregate figures. 
Its main objective is the development of Table 4 (page 38), which 
shows the total cost of public education in the state for each 
year from 1910 to 1922. Table 4 is the result of consolidating the 
figures of “ aggregate current expenses ” and “ aggregate plant costs ” 
which are presented and discussed in the two sections which immedi¬ 
ately follow. To understand the precise content of the figures in Table 4 
it is necessary to examine underlying data appearing in these two 

sections. 

Aggregate Current Expenses 


The annual current expenses 2 of the public educational system of the 
state for the past thirteen years are shown in Table 1. These figuies 
represent the money spent for salaries, wages, fuel, supplies, etc about 
three-fourths being accounted for by teachers’ salaries. They include no 
“ capital outlay,” such as expenditures for land, buildings, and equipment, 
and no “ debt service,” such as interest on permanent loans or provisions 
for amortization. 4 In this or any other table giving data in dollars over a 
considerable number of years, the reader must guard against a false im¬ 
pression from not taking into account the fluctuating value of the dollar. 

In this connection, see note 1 on page 136. 

More than three times as much money was required to meet current 
expenses of the public schools of the state in 1922 as in 1910. While each 
year shows an increase as compared with the preceding one, there was a 
distinct slackening in the rate of increase in the years of 1916 and 1917 and 

• This is the ‘'annual accrued economic cost” <r 38). The .f oluncWeTe ZZ 

-I-. . Qn nn o Thp total cost figures of public education as given in th s P 

S^ari^^ts of public institutions for would cover tbe 

?It Should be noted that the term “current expenses in-rd mar^^ountmg ^ ^ .. expen se” 

item of “interest payments,” which in this 9tudy ' S C ^ ite ^ a are accounted for on the accrual 

as here used is not to be interpreted as implying that in all cases item 

ba t“Equipment” is interpreted throughout this report to. include school called 

" t‘it M Ending ai, things 

which may be worn out or used up during any one school year. 

* See Chapter V, p- 80. 


29 


30 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


TABLE 1 1 

CURRENT EXPENSES 2 OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, 1910-1922 

For Years Ending July 31 


State and Local — State of New York 


1910 .... 

.... $47,521,058 

1916 1 2 3 . . . 

. . . . $67,548,473 

1911 .... 

.... 49,470,831 

1917 .... 

. . . . 68,582,162 

1912 .... 

.... 54,680,626 

1918 .... 

. . . . 76,258,399 

1913 .... 

.... 56,430,111 

1919 .... 

. . . . 84,855,429 

1914 .... 

.... 62,714,645 

1920 .... 

. . . . 101,395,871 

1915 .... 

.... 66,982,589 

1921 .... 

. . . . 148,115,510 



1922 .... 

. . . . 159,195,578 


1910 

1915 

1920 

1921 

1922 


City of New York Only 

.$27,382,101 

. 37,607,162 

. 52,557,057 

. 83,855,207 

. 86,200,136 


1 Except where otherwise stated the figures upon which the tables in this chapter are based were drawn 
from the official annual reports of the State Department of Education, the State Comptroller, and the 
Comptroller of the City of New York. The figures for the most recent years were usually taken from the 
original records, published reports being not yet available. 

2 Includes interest on]temporary debt. 

3 The state’s fiscal year was changed at this time, so that certain of the state expenditures were for a 
nine-month rather than a twelve-month period. 

a rapid acceleration during the last four years of the period. The largest 
single increase was in the year 1921, when new state-wide salary legislation 
became effective. The amount of the increase in this year was almost as 
great as the entire amount paid out in current expenses in 1910. 

The figures at the foot of the table, representing current school expenses 
of the City of New York only, for selected years, show variations similar 
to those for the state as a whole. 

As has been noted, a high percentage of the current expenses consists 
of salaries and wages. This fact is of significance in relation to the problem 
of the probable future course of expenditures. Ordinarily wages and sal¬ 
aries rise more slowly and fall less quickly than do other prices. This is 
particularly true in the public service. Moreover, in the opinion of many 
students of the problem, the recent advances in teachers’ salaries represent 
merely a partial recognition of the advance in the level of prices. They 
contend that it would be unwise from every point of view, including the 
economic, to reduce the new level of teachers’ salaries. Since this posi¬ 
tion is widely held, it seems unlikely that the immediate future will 


























TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND ITS GROWTH 31 


bring material reductions in the aggregate current expenses of educa¬ 
tion, unless there should be so great a drop in the level of pi ices as 
to place the salary schedule radically out of balance with prices in general. 
When one takes into account the strong demand for expansion of the edu¬ 
cational program and advance in educational standards, increases in cur¬ 
rent expenses seem more probable than decreases. 


Aggregate Plant Costs 1 

The costs involved in supplying the physical equipment of the public 
school system cannot be presented so simply as could the current expenses 
discussed in the foregoing section. To secure an adequate conception 
of the situation it is desirable to approach it from at least two points 

of view. 

A. Cash Disbursements. — The first point of view is that of the public 
treasury. The appropriate facts are those relating to the money which is 
spent each year for purchasing new sites, buildings, and equipment, and 
for paying interest on the funds borrowed to finance such pui chases. 
Table 2 presents these treasury facts. It shows what the state and lo¬ 
calities spent in actual dollars year by year for capital outlay and interest. 2 

The figures under the caption “ Capital Outlay ” are shown in graphic 
form in Diagram 2. It will be observed that the sums spent for new sites, 
buildings, and equipment increased from year to year at a moderate rate 
until 1915, when the progression was disturbed by the outbreak of the war 
in Europe. A tendency to restrict extensions of the school plant is plainly 
apparent in the figures for the years 1915 to 1920. Not until 1921 did 
capital outlay reach as high a level as that attained in 1914. 

In the absence of an elaborate physical survey for the purpose of deter¬ 
mining how much capital outlay is necessary in order to provide and main¬ 
tain an “ adequate ” equipment of schoolhouses, it is not safe to draw dog¬ 
matic conclusions from Diagram 2. However, the facts make one point 
clear: contrary to a view sometimes expressed, the recent increase in ag¬ 
gregate school expenses is not due to an attempt, by inordinately laige 
capital outlays, to make up for the setback in the normal construction 

program during the starved years of the war. 

Thus, if the rate of increase during the period 1910-1915 can be accepted 
as an indication of the normal increase in capital outlay, the diagram would 


1 It should be observed that ordinary maintenance and repairs (but not depreciation) are included 

no figure is given representing amortization of debt by payment of bonds o, 
navments to sinking funds. To include these figures with those given would clearly involve 
double counting, as it would insert a given item as a cost both when the borrowed sum is spent and 
when the debt is paid. The figures as given recognize the item as a cost when the money is actually spent 
for new sites buildings, or equipment, regardless of whether it is obtained by oans or taxes From the 
inadequate records available it is not possible to trace the history of the various loans and construct 
recognizing the items as costs when the loans are amortized. See Chapter V. 


30 

28 

26 

24 

22 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

\ 

2 

0 


IANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


DIAGRAM 2 

Cash Disbursements for Public School Sites, 
Buildings, and Equipment, 1910-1922 







































TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND ITS GROWTH 33 


TABLE 2 

PLANT COSTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, 1910-1922 
A. Cash Disbursements 
For Years Ending July 31 


State and Local — State of New York 


Year 

Capital Outlay 1 

Interest Payments 2 

Total 

1910 

$ 7,923,152 

$4,182,018 

$12,105,170 

1911 

8,562,419 

4,249,927 

12,812,346 

1912 

9,762,159 

4,294,316 

14,056,475 

1913 

10,738,778 

4,870,354 

15,609,132 

1914 

12,610,632 

5,275,382 

17,886,014 

1915 

12,244,801 

5,614,285 

17,859,086 

1916 

7,117,414 

5,452,861 

12,570,275 

1917 

7,872,247 

5,405,562 

13,277,809 

1918 

7,956,731 

5,584,309 

13,541,040 

1919 

8,337,141 

5,508,667 

13,845,808 

1920 

9,996,662 

5,951,620 

15,948,282 

1921 

20,786,138 

6,578,355 

27,364,493 

1922 

30,033,883 

6,804,948 

36,838,831 

City of New York Only 

1910 

$4,171,189 

$3,503,545 

$7,674,734 

1915 

6,654,454 

4,406,124 

11,060,578 

1920 

2,863,398 

4,083,690 

6,947,088 

1921 

9,559,011 

4,162,922 

13,721,933 

1922 

13,857,989 

4,600,000 

18,457,989 


1 This item includes disbursements for sites, buildings, and equipment. In obtaining this figure certain 
adjustments were made to allow for the changes in classification in the reports of the State Department of 
Education and to exclude expenditures for repairs and other items included under capital outlay in the 
state report classification. 

2 Interest payments for the City of New York are estimated on the assumption that the ratio of interest 
on the educational debt to interest on the total city debt is the same as is the ratio of the amount of the 
city educational debt to the amount of the total city debt. 

2 The state’s fiscal year was changed at this time so that certain of the state expenditures were for a 
nine-month rather than a twelve-month period. 

seem to show that certainly the expenditure of 1921 and perhaps even 
the large 1922 expense was only what might have been expected in the 
ordinary course of events, had there been no interruption due to the war 
and no great changes in construction costs. 

A large part of the money spent for capital outlay during the period 
represents mere replacements of worn-out plant and equipment, rather 
than extensions of plant or improvements in the grade of facilities. As 
a matter of fact, the actual depreciation in existing buildings and equip¬ 
ment during the period 1910-1921 1 was sufficient to offset nearly one- 

1 See p. 35, Table 3. 

















34 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


half the total amount credited to capital outlay in the table and diagram 
during those years. 

It must be remembered, also, that capital outlay for extensions of plant 
is necessary merely because of increased numbers, entirely aside from the 
question of improving the standards of the school plant. From 1910 to 
1920 the population of the state increased fourteen per cent and the pupils 
in average daily attendance twenty-two per cent. 1 

Even more important than the foregoing considerations is the phenom¬ 
enal increase in the cost of building schoolhouses. In spite of the tendency 
to restrict capital outlay during the war, it is of interest to note that almost 
precisely the same amount of money was spent on school plant during the 
second six years of the period as during the first six years (1910-1915, 
$61,850,000; 1916-1921, $62,070,000). However, construction costs dur¬ 
ing the latter half of the period were so much higher 2 than during the first 
half that the accommodations supplied by the capital outlay of the second 
six years were certainly not more than one-half as large as those secured 
by the outlay of the first six years. 

These facts all tend to support the view that the state has not yet reached 
the peak of capital outlay. On the contrary, they indicate that, if the 
same standard of plant facilities is to be maintained in the future as has 
been reached in the past, large increases are to be expected in the forth¬ 
coming years. How inadequate the standard has been is clearly evi¬ 
dent from the statistics of part-time students 3 for whom full-time ac¬ 
commodations are not available. 

The figures for the City of New York alone, shown at the bottom of Table 
2, prompt two observations. The first is that, during the past three years, 
the city, as compared with the rest of the state, has spent relatively less 
for new school plant than it did in 1910 and 1915. The second point is the 
evidence, supplied by the interest payments, regarding the increased ex¬ 
tent to which the school plant up-state is financed by borrowed money. 
Whereas in 1910 the interest payments on school debt in the City of New 
York alone made up seven-eighths of the total for the state, in 1920, 1921, 
and 1922 they formed only about two-thirds of the total. 

B. Annual Accrued Economic Charge. — In the preceding section plant 
costs are discussed in terms of the cash disbursements made from the 
public treasury during the period. The figures now presented relate not 
to actual dollar operations of the treasury, but rather to the true annual 

1 Burgess discovered what he terms a “striking uniformity” in the percentages of total school expendi¬ 
tures devoted to the purchase of sites, buildings, and equipment in the country as a whole over a period of 
years. W. Randolph Burgess, “Trends of School Costs” (Department of Education, Russell Sage Founda¬ 
tion, 1920), pp. 88-89. There appears to be no fundamental reason why this relation should remain con¬ 
stant. It is of interest to note that the percentages for New York State for the past twelve years run con¬ 
siderably lower than those which Burgess cites for the country as a whole. 

2 Burgess (op. cit., pp. 117-118) estimated that the cost of building schoolhouses in 1920 was three times 

as great as in 1915. 3 See pp. 91, 119. 


TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND ITS GROWTH 35 


accrued economic charge upon the community’s resources, occasioned by 
the school plant. Annual accrued economic charge means not money 
paid but money's worth used up. 

In the first set of figures, capital outlays appear when the money used 
to provide the plant leaves the public treasury. In the second, this item 
appears from year to year as the plant which occasioned the outlay is con¬ 
sumed or worn out. Again, the first statement includes only interest 
payments actually made by the public treasury on such portions of the 
capital as remain unpaid, no account being taken of the annual interest 
value of the remainder of the capital tied up in the enterprise. In con¬ 
trast, the second statement contains an item representing annual interest 
computed on all the capital invested in the school system (which would 
otherwise conceivably be available for other uses, public or private), irre¬ 
spective of whether the state secured this capital by loans or taxes. The 
figures, classified according to this second viewpoint, are presented in 
Table 3 under the caption of “ Annual Accrued Economic Charge.” 

TABLE 3 

PLANT COSTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, 1910-1921 
B . Annual Accrued Economic Charge 1 
For Years Ending July 31 


State and Local — State of New York 


Year 

Value of School Build¬ 
ings and Equipment 
Worn Out durinq 
Year 

Imputed Interest on the 
Value of the Investment 
in School Sites, Build¬ 
ings, and Equipment 

Total 

1910 

$3,204,549 


$ 7,055,610 

$10,260,159 

1911 

3,338,240 


7,294,067 

10,632,307 

1912 

3,612,369 


8,018,566 

11,630,935 

1913 

3,661,166 


8,046,804 

11,707,970 

1914 

3,917,698 


8,702,347 

12,620,045 

1915 

4,199,055 


9,464,338 

13,663,393 

1916 

4,343,951 


9,216,550 

13,560,501 

1917 

4,569,057 


10,239,667 

14,808,724 

1918 

4,721,635 


10,854,441 

15,576,076 

1919 

4,895,058 


10,555,635 

15,450,693 

1920 

5,390,739 


12,773,052 

18,163,791 

1921 

6,127,870 


13,509,079 

19,636,949 


City of New York Only 


1910 

$1,567,891 

$4,246,285 

$5,814,176 

1915 

2,059,267 

5,654,779 

7,714,046 

1920 

2,327,800 

5,913,298 

8,241,098 

1921 

2,524,455 

6,326,363 

8,850,818 


1 Or amount of money’s worth actually used up. 






















36 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


A detailed explanation of the method by which the estimates of deprecia¬ 
tion and imputed interest were made will be found in Chapter V, pages 
82-88. 1 The items are presented merely as approximations, but it is 
believed that they are substantially accurate. 

A comparison of Table 3 with Table 2 will make clear these significant 

differences: 

(1) The rate at which the school plant depreciated and became obsolete 
is more regular than the rate at which new plant was added, but in every 
year, even during the war, the community added to its school plant more 
than it used up. 

(2) The “ imputed interest ” shown in Table 3 is consistently larger in 
amount than the cash disbursements for interest, because it is calculated 
on the entire amount of capital used, whereas the “ interest payments’’ 
shown in Table 2 represent only the interest on borrowed portions of that 
capital. 2 

(3) The annual accrued economic charge gives, of course, a more regular 
rate of increase than the total cash disbursements; but after all, the dif¬ 
ferences in the aggregate are not very great. 

Total Cost 

By combining the figures of current expenses with the two types of 
plant costs developed in the two preceding sections, comprehensive fig¬ 
ures of total costs are obtained, truly representative of the aggregate burden 
occasioned by the system of public education in the state. These totals 
are presented in Table 4 and Diagram 3. It will be noted that these figures 
include the costs of tax-supported education of all types, excepting only 
the costs of state institutions for the blind, deaf, dumb, and otherwise de¬ 
fective, and the costs of public libraries. 

Because of the double method of measuring plant costs, two aggre¬ 
gates are presented, each of which has its peculiar advantages in making 
clear the situation. The column bearing the caption “ Cash Disburse¬ 
ments” is the sum of the current expenses shown on page 30, and the 
“Cash Disbursements” from the Plant Costs Table on page 33. 
Under the caption “Annual Accrued Economic Cost ” appear figures ob¬ 
tained by substituting the “annual accrued economic charge” figures from 
page 35 in place of the “ cash disbursements ” figures as the measure of 
plant costs. 

The figures in Table 4 comprise the best statement which the Commis¬ 
sion could prepare concerning the total costs of tax-supported public 
education in the State of New York. To one who wishes to know how 

1 The attention of the reader is called particularly to the discussion of the appreciation in the value of 
school sites and its significance in this connection. 

2 Interest payments would exceed imputed interest only if the outstanding obligations exceeded the 
value of the school plant. 


Millions -> ,0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168 *??_ . 216 


TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND ITS GROWTH 



37 


Current Expenses Capital Cimrgs 3 . 


























38 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


much money has been paid out annually from the public treasury, the 
first set of figures supplies a precise answer. To one who wishes to know 
the true amount chargeable to each year on account of operation and 
maintenance of the school system, together with the interest on the value 
of the plant in use, the second set gives the closest available estimate. 


TABLE 4 

TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC EDUCATION, 1910-1922 
Current Expenses plus Plant Costs 
For Years Ending July 31 


State and Local — State of New York 


Year 

Cash Disbursements 1 

Annual Accrued Economic Cost 

1910 

$ 59,626,228 

$ 57,781,217 

1911 

62,283,177 

60,103,138 

1912 

68,737,101 

66,311,561 

1913 

72,039,243 

68,138,081 

1914 

80,600,659 

75,334,690 

1915 

84,841,675 

80,645,982 

1916 2 

80,118,748 

81,108,974 

1917 

81,859,971 

83,390,886 

1918 

89,799,439 

91,834,475 

1919 

98,701,237 

100,306,122 

1920 

117,344,153 

119,559,662 

1921 

175,480,003 

167,752,459 

1922 

196,034,409 

180,311,167 3 


City of New York Only 


1910 

$35,056,835 

$33,196,277 

1915 

48,667,740 

45,321,208 

1920 

59,504,145 

60,798,155 

1921 

97,577,140 

92,706,025 

1922 

104,658,125 


1 These figures exclude transfers, refunds, payments on bonds, and temporary loans and payments to 
sinking funds and other governmental cost payments. 

2 The state’s fiscal year was changed at this time so that certain of the state expenditures were for a 
nine-month rather than a twelve-month period. 

3 An estimate for this figure was the only thing possible at the time this table had to be closed. For 
this reason the corresponding items for the City of New York in Table 4 and for all data on 1922 in Table 
3 are omitted. 


Considering first the cash disbursements, the table shows that during 
the year 1921—1922 more than 196 million dollars of public money were 
spent on schools in the state. The expense has nearly trebled in the dec¬ 
ade since 1912. Most of the increase came in the single year 1921, when 
58 millions were added, a sum slightly larger than the total increase during 
the entire preceding ten years. The cash payments by the City of New 


















TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND ITS GROWTH 39 


York alone have increased from 35 millions in 1910 to nearly 105 millions 
in 1922. 

The total cash disbursements show a gradual and moderate increase 
from 1910 to 1915. During the following two years, due to causes already 
pointed out, 1 those actual “ out-of-pocket ” expenditures fell below the 
mark established in 1915; 1918 exceeded 1915 once more; and the annual 
increases have been large each year since. 

Turning to the annual accrued economic cost, 2 the figures show that in 
1921 this item reached nearly 168 million dollars, the amount quoted in 
the first paragraph of this chapter, and in 1922, 180 million dollars. 
These figures compare with a cost of approximately 58 millions in 1910. 
For the reasons suggested in preceding sections 3 the figures show a fairly 
even progression. 

In the City of New York, the annual accrued economic cost of the public 
schools is placed at approximately 93 millions in 1921 as compared with 
33 millions in 1910. 

However measured, the outstanding fact is that the aggregate cost of 
the tax-supported school system of the state has trebled in a period of 
twelve years. This statement, however, should not be considered out of 
relation to its background. The facts regarding the increase in school en¬ 
rolment, the expansion of the educational program, the increased cost of 
building materials and supplies, and the increase in the cost of living with 
its effect upon salaries and wages, should all be kept in mind. All together 
they go far to explain the increase. No attempt is made in this chapter, 
however, completely to explain or to justify it. The purpose here is pri¬ 
marily to establish the facts regarding the extent of the increase. 4 

Total Costs of Schools of Different Grade 

It is possible to segregate in a fairly satisfactory manner the total cash 
disbursements (but not the annual accrued economic cost) in such a man¬ 
ner as to show, separately, the aggregate costs of higher education, high 
schools, elementary schools, and certain general costs of supervision. 
Table 5 presents such figures for selected years. It should be borne in 
mind that the figures as they appear in the table include capital outlay 
and interest as well as current expenses. 

Aggregate expenses for high schools have increased at a somewhat more 
rapid pace than the expenses for elementary schools. Expenses for ele- 


1 See pp. 29, 31. 

» Strictly speaking, the term “annual accrued economic cost” is too broad to apply to the figures given 
above. These figures do not comprehend the entire cost of the system of public education, if the amounts 
expended by individuals for subsistence during the period of training, and the loss to the community of the 
economic efforts of the individuals being trained and directing the training, are to be considered as entering 
into the cost. It is impossible, however, at present, to supply even approximate estimates of these costs, 
s See p. 36. 4 See PP- 36-38. 


40 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

mentary schools and high schools together amounted to 95.1 per cent of 
the total cash payments in 1910 and to 95.9 per cent in 1922. 

TABLE 5 

TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC EDUCATION (CASH DISBURSEMENTS) 
CLASSIFIED BY TYPE OF ACTIVITY RECEIVING SUPPORT, 

1910, 1915, 1920-1922 

For Years Ending July 31 


State and Local — State of New York 



1910 

1915 

1920 

1921 

1922 

Elementary Schools 1 . 
High Schools 1 . . . 

Total Elementary 

$48,352,542 

8,358,208 

$66,447,939 

14,069,678 

$ 92,142,879 
19,102,706 



and High Schools 
Normal Schools and 

$56,710,750 

$80,517,617 

$111,245,585 

$167,967,249 

$188,075,160 

Colleges .... 
Miscellaneous General 

1,491,874 

2,979,159 

4,372,239 

5,483,503 

6,133,281 

Gosts 2 . 

1,423,604 

1,344,899 

1,726,329 

2,029,251 

1,825,968 

Total 3 . 

$59,626,228 

$84,841,675 

$117,344,153 

$175,480,003 

$196,034,409 


City of New York Only 


Elementary Schools 1 . 
High Schools 1 . . . 

$30,233,034 

4,023,848 

$39,714,303 

8,077,480 

$49,091,682 

9,330,349 



Total Elementary 






and High Schools 

$34,256,882 

$47,791,783 

$58,422,031 

$95,860,100 

$102,036,355 

Normal Schools and 


Colleges .... 

799,953 

875,957 

1,082,114 

1,717,040 

2,621,770 

Total 3 . . . . 

$35,056,835 

$48,667,740 

$59,504,145 

$97,577,140 

$104,658,125 


1 It should be noted that the figures for high schools and elementary schools are consolidated in the school 
reports under the caption of “common schools.” The separate figures as given in Table 5 for high schools 
and elementary schools were calculated by applying the salary-ratio formula (see p. 42) to this total figure 
for “common schools.” Consequently, although the sum of these two figures will be found to correspond 
precisely with the total as given in the reports, the accuracy of the individual items is subject to the limita¬ 
tions of the salary formula. 

2 The figures given under the caption “Miscellaneous General Costs” consist of the expenses of the State 
Department of Education. These include the salaries of the district superintendents, which are paid directly 
by the state. They do not include the distinctively local and internal costs of administration. It proved 
impossible, owing to inadequate accounting, to segregate these. Subventions and expenditures for state 
institutions and Indian schools appear in the other categories. Finally, the figures do not include the ex¬ 
penditures for the Panama-Pacific exposition and certain other similar expenditures. It should be noted 
that these figures include capital outlay as well as current expenses, a fact which goes far to explain the 
relatively slight increase in the twelve-year period. During the first five years of the period an aggregate 
of $3,853,708 was spent on capital outlay, which included the cost of the state education building at Albany. 

3 These figures include capital outlay, interest, and current expenses but exclude transfers, refunds, 
payments on bonds and temporary loans, payments to sinking funds, and other non-governmental cost 
payments. 


In the State of New York relatively little public money is devoted to the 
support of education above the high school, but in the period under review 











































TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC EDUCATION AND ITS GROWTH 41 


that support has increased at a somewhat more rapid rate than the support 
of either elementary or high schools. This is true even though there has 
been only a relatively slight increase in the amounts spent by the institu¬ 
tions of higher education in the City of New York as compared with the 
up-state institutions. 

To summarize: The examination of the aggregate figures shows that 
the cost of the tax-supported public school system of the state in 1922 
was $196,034,409 on the “ cash disbursement ” basis. In 1921 the cor¬ 
responding figure was $175,480,003. On the more precise “ annual accrued 
economic cost ” basis, the cost in 1921 was $167,752,459. In 1910 the 
“ cash disbursements” were only $59,626,228 and the “annual accrued 
economic cost ” only $57,781,217. In other words, the cost has approxi¬ 
mately trebled since 1910. So far as it is possible to judge, current ex¬ 
penses are likely to increase and capital charges are almost certain to in¬ 
crease in the years immediately ahead. In 1920, the latest year for which 
data are available, 78.5 per cent of the total cash disbursements went 
directly to the support of the elementary schools. If present trends con¬ 
tinue this percentage will decrease, and in the future high schools and higher 
education will absorb a progressively larger part of the total disbursements. 


CHAPTER IV 


CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 

The preceding chapter deals with aggregate figures for the public school 
system — not only current expenses 1 but capital outlay and interest on 
bonded indebtedness as well. This chapter presents a somewhat detailed 
analysis of the current expenses only, and attempts to throw light on par¬ 
ticular purposes for which money is spent and on variations in such ex¬ 
penditures from community to community. 2 

It is obvious that an analysis of this kind is likely to raise many questions 
which it does not answer. Definite conclusions often cannot be fairly 
drawn without going behind the figures. But by merely stating the ques¬ 
tion more precisely, such an analysis contributes toward the solution of 
the problem, in that it substitutes specific queries for vague general com¬ 
plaints. Instead of “ Why do the schools cost so much? ” the taxpayer 
and the educator ask, “ Why do current expenses of elementary schools in 
one community cost in 1921 $272 per pupil in average daily attendance, 
when in another community they cost only $26 ? Why did one commu¬ 
nity pay $34 in current expenses to care for each pupil in its high school, 
while another community spent $1132, or more than thirty times as much? 
Why did kindergartens in one community cost $21 per pupil and in another 
$113?” The figures are real ones. 

The results of the cost analysis summarized in this chapter are to be 
published in detail in two supplementary volumes. It is hoped that they 
will stimulate those in control of public schools in the various communities 
studied to inquire concerning the quality of the educational service which 
is being rendered, and the efficiency of the organization and administra¬ 
tion of their schools. 

The Salary-Ratio Formula. — A cost analysis such as that outlined 
above is limited by the precision of the accounting system used as the 
basis for school reports. In 1920 the State Department of Education called 
for reports which distributed current expenses among kindergartens, ele¬ 
mentary schools, high schools, teacher training schools, vocational schools, 

1 It should be noted that current expenses are defined so as to include interest on temporary debt but 
to exclude bond interest. 

2 This, of course, does not constitute a complete cost analysis. It is simply the best analysis the Com¬ 
mittee has found it possible to make in the face of inadequate methods of public accounting, inherent dif¬ 
ficulties of measuring product in the field of education, and the impracticability of making elaborate field 
studies in the various individual communities. 


42 


CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 43 


and special schools. It was hoped that these figures would supply the 
exact information desired. Unfortunately, however, a careful check 
showed that only 18 out of 10,376 school systems submitted reports of the 
character prescribed. At the very outset, therefore, it was necessary to 
resort to some form of estimate. It was necessary to develop a method 
whereby current expenses for the different divisions of the school system 
could be calculated from the general data available. 

In the course of various attempts to find a rule which would satisfac¬ 
torily distribute expenditures among the divisions of the school system it 
was discovered that the amount of money spent for teachers’ salaries bears 
a close and constant relationship to total current expenses in each division 
of the school system. This proved to be true both in the eighteen cities 
in the State of New York for which data were available and in a group of 
cities in the State of Pennsylvania from which similar data were secured. 
Since the relation between teachers’ salaries for a division, and current 
expenses for that division is constant, and since both for the year 1920 and 
for previous years, the salaries of teachers in the various divisions of the 
school system of the State of New York — kindergarten, elementary, 
secondary, and the like — were separately reported, it was possible to 
adopt the procedure represented by the following formula: 

Total current expenses multiplied by Elementary teachers’ salaries 
divided by Total teachers’ salaries equals Total current expenses for 
elementary schools. 


Total current 
expenses 


X 


Elementary teachers’ salaries 
Total teachers’ salaries 


Total current ex- 
= penses for elemen¬ 
tary schools 1 


Elementary School Costs 

Current Expenses for Elementary Schools — General. — In the year 
1921 2 it cost in current expenses an average of $89 per pupil to operate 
the elementary schools of the state. This figure is obtained by dividing 
the total current expenses of elementary education by the total number of 

1 In the validation of the salary-ratio formula thirty-seven cities whose accounting permitted of the 
segregation of costs by divisions of the school system were used. Per-pupil costs were found first by taking 
the costs as indicated by the records which were kept and the reports which were made. The same per- 
pupil costs were then calculated by using the salary-ratio formula. The average of the recorded per-pupil 
cost was $51.44. The average cost as determined by the salary-ratio calculations was $51.50. The cor¬ 
relation between the real costs and the salary-ratio calculated costs gave a Pearson “r” of ,988±.003. 
The correlation between the total (not per-pupil) cost figures is r = + .999db.0002. The partial correla¬ 
tion between these figures when average daily attendance in elementary schools is rendered constant is 
r = + .973±.006. The errors or deviations from the real cost in the calculated cost are compensating since 
the salary-ratio costs were greater than the real costs in 19 cases, in 1 case the same, and in 17 cases less. 
It is important to note that the thirty-seven communities from which accurate accounting was available 
and which were used in comparing the real cost with the calculated cost ranged in population from 7,000 
to nearly 300,000. The algebraic sum of the difference for the thirty-seven school systems between the 
real costs per pupil and the salary-ratio costs per pupil is $2.03. This is an average difference of 5£ 
cents or one-ninth of one per cent of the average cost per pupil. 

* All figures in this chapter are for years ending July 31. 



44 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


children in average daily attendance. The variation in current expense in 
the various divisions or administrative units is shown in the following table : 


TABLE 6 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COSTS — STATE OF NEW YORK, 1920, 1921 

Current Expenses per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance 



1920 

1921 

New York City alone. 

$61 

$95 

All cities. 

54 

94 

All villages over 4,500 . 

54 

66 

All villages under 4,500 . 

53 

60 

Rural schools. 

61.74 1 

2 


1 This figure was derived by securing data from the first numbered rural school (not a union free school) 
district in each township in the state. The rural school survey, from a selection of all rural schools in 24 
supervisory districts scattered over the entire state, found the median current expense per pupil in average 
daily attendance for this year to be $64.76. See Joint Committee on Rural Schools, “Rural School Survey 
of New York State” (Ithaca, N. Y., 1922), Vol. I, p. 216. 

2 The labor involved in computing this figure for these schools with records unbound at the time the 
work would have had to be done precluded attempting to give the figure for this year. There are good 
reasons for believing that it would have been closer to its 1920 figure than were the 1921 figures for the 
other groups to their 1920 figures. 

Variations from City to City. — A more complete analysis of the varia¬ 
tion in current expenses among the cities of the state is given in the follow¬ 
ing table: 

TABLE 7 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COSTS — CITIES — STATE OF NEW YORK, 

1911, 1916, 1921 

Current Expenses per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance 


Cities 

1911 

1916 

1921 

1 st-Class Cities 1 




Average 2 . 

$39 

$49 

$92 

High. 

45 

51 

101 

Low. 

35 

48 

82 

2 d-Class Cities 


Average 2 . 

$34 

$40 

$79 

High. 

43 

50 

98 

Low. 

23 

33 

60 

3 d-Class Cities 


Average 2 . 

$32 

$36 

$69 

High. 

64 

65 

104 

Low. 

17 

24 

32 


1 First-class cities over 175,000 population. All cases were used, 3 in number. 

Second-class cities 50,000 to 175,000 population. All cases were used, 7 in number. 

Third-class cities below 50,000 population. The number increased from 40 in 1911 to 49 in 1921 

All cases were used save in 1911, when one had to be omitted. 

2 This is the simple arithmetic average. 















































CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 45 


Costs in first-class cities tend to run higher than in smaller cities. For 
the year 1921, for example, the average of first-class cities is $13 above that 
of second-class cities and $23 above that of third-class cities. It is inter¬ 
esting to note that the most expensive and the least expensive city in the 
state, in each of the three years, were both cities of the third class. 

Variations from Village to Village. — The current expenses of elemen¬ 
tary schools in the larger villages were even more variable than among 
the cities of the state. The facts appear in the table given below: 

TABLE 8 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COSTS — VILLAGES OVER 4,500 
STATE OF NEW YORK, 1911, 1916, 1921 

Current Expenses per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance 



1911 

1916 

1921 

Average. 

$32 

$40 

$66 

High. 

53 

66 • 

125 

Low. 

13 

22 

36 


It will be observed that the village average for 1921 ($66) is considerably 
lower than the city average for that year ($94). Although particular 
instances are not lacking of villages which spent more than the most ex¬ 
pensive city, no village of this size for 1921 had as low a cost as the least 
expensive city. In 1911 and 1916 these rules are slightly less true. In 
general, however, the figures show that the current expenses for elementary 
schools have increased less rapidly in villages of over 4,500 population 
than in the cities. In the villages, expenses have just doubled. In every 
class of city they have more than doubled since 1911. 

A similar variability is shown for villages under 4,500 population in 
Table 9. 

TABLE 9 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COSTS — VILLAGES HAVING LESS THAN 
4,500 POPULATION AND MAINTAINING HIGH SCHOOLS 

STATE OF NEW YORK, 1921 

Current Expenses per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance 

Union Schools 



One-Year 
High School 

Two-Year 
High School 

Three-Year 

High School 

Four-Year 

High School 

Average. 

High. 

Low. 

$55 

93 

31 

$58 

127 

32 

$67 

272 

31 

$58 

147 

26 


The average current expense in these communities, except in the case 
of those maintaining the three-year high school course, is lower than for 




































46 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


the larger cities and villages of the state. On the other hand, the varia¬ 
tion in current expense is greater. It appears that very high expenditures 
are associated with provision in these villages for two or more years of 
high school education. This may mean that the more ambitious commu¬ 
nities, as measured by the provision which they make for high school edu¬ 
cation, are also the communities which provide most adequately for their 
elementary schools. 

Current Expenses and Teachers’ Salaries. — The increase in current 
expense per pupil for elementary education has been due both to an in¬ 
crease in the salaries of teachers and to increases in other current expenses. 
Table 10 gives the expense per pupil for teachers’ salaries and the total cur¬ 
rent expenses per pupil in average daily attendance in elementary schools for 
the years 1911 and 1921. 

TABLE 10 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COSTS — CITIES AND VILLAGES OVER 4,500 

STATE OF NEW YORK, 1911, 1921 


Total Current Expenses Compared with Teachers’ Salaries, per 
Pupil in Average Daily Attendance 



Teachers’ Salaries 

Total Current 
Expenses 

Percentage 

Increase 

Teachers’ 

Salaries 

Percentage 
Increase 
Total Current 
Expenses 

1911 

1921 

1911 

1921 

Low 







lst-Class Cities . . 

$25 

$53 

$35 

$82 

112 

134 

2d-Class Cities 

19 

42 

23 

60 

121 

161 

3d-Class Cities . . 

11 

23 

17 

32 

109 

88 

Villages over 4,500 

9 

32 2 

13 

52 2 

256 

300 

The Middle Case 1 







lst-Class Cities . . 

$29 

$64 

$37 

$ 95 

121 

157 

2d-Class Cities 

26 

55 

36 

83 

112 

131 

3d-Class Cities . . 

20 

41 

30 

67 

105 

123 

Villages over 4,500 

19 

42 2 

32 

66 2 

121 

106 

High 







lst-Class Cities 

$36 

$72 

$45 

$101 

100 

124 

2d-Class Cities 

34 

64 

43 

98 

88 

128 

3d-Class Cities 

34 

61 

64 

104 

79 

63 

Villages over 4,500 

30 

65 2 

53 

94 2 

117 

77 


1 As many cities rank above as below it, when compared as to the amounts they spend. The extreme 
cases are reported as “low” and “high.” 

2 The 1921 figures for villages are those obtained from the same 27 villages that determine the 1911 
figures. Elsewhere in this report data are given for 58 villages. 

Number of Cases Included in Table 10 
Cities: 

First-class 3 

Second-class 7 

Third-class 46-49 
Villages over 4,500 27 



























CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 47 


* 


m 

W 


Ph 

O 

<! 


U 

I 

02 

H 

02 

O 

O 

o 

o 

K 

o 

co 

h 

fc 

w 

§ 

W 

hJ 

W 


o 

o 

w 

u 

02 

£ 

O 


tf 
w 

Ph 

02 
W 
02 
£ 
H 

Oh 

^ w 

Q 

a 

o' tf 

O ffi 
LO £) 

^ o 
« 


H 

O 

£ 

<1 

Q 

£ 

W 

Eh 

Eh 

<1 

(H 

lO 


<M 

05 


M 
M 
O 

O w 

H ^ 
® h 

o 


w 

o 


« 

5 

R <1 


w 

Eh 
<3 

^ Eh 

5 02 


CO « J 
W H £ 

O tfl H 

13 Q Ph 


05 

a 

o3 


00 


02 

02 

3 

c3 

H 


c3 

H-i 

cj 

Q 

a 

o 

73 

02 

02 

Cj 

m 

















48 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


In eight out of twelve of the cases reported, total current expenses in¬ 
creased more rapidly between 1911 and 1921 than teachers' salaries. 

The facts relating to elementary school current expenses in 1921, as 
presented in the foregoing tables, are summarized in Diagram 4. The 
figures indicate that in some of the schools the provision for the education 
of children is rich, while in others it is meager indeed. If the wide varia¬ 
tion in costs shown in the diagram indicates a corresponding variation in 
educational advantages, the question at once arises as to whether this lat¬ 
ter variation can be justified, or whether there is extravagance in some 
cases and at the same time offerings below the “necessary minimum” of 
educational opportunity in others. 1 

Some part of the variation in elementary school costs is undoubtedly 
due to a variation in the efficiency and intelligence with which schools are 
organized and administered. Some economies — the quantitative im¬ 
portance of which cannot be estimated without a much more exhaustive 
study — are doubtless attainable, and desirable. It should be noted, 
however, that such a study may often result in recommending the pro¬ 
vision of increased educational opportunity, and not always a reduction 
of money needed. 

Current Expenses in Elementary Schools by Grades and by Objec¬ 
tives. — The salaries of teachers can be allocated with a fair degree of 
accuracy to the grades in which they give instruction, and to the sev¬ 
eral subjects taught, by assuming that that part of a teacher's time 
which is devoted to any grade, or to a particular subject, properly 
represents the part of the salary which should be charged against that 
grade or subject. In like manner, one can allocate the salaries of teachers 
of special subjects and the supervisors of special subjects. The assump¬ 
tion involved — that a teacher's time has a uniform value — is a reason¬ 
able one. 

The Method of Approach. — To secure the necessary facts with respect 
to the salaries of teachers and the allotment of their time, a special report 
was requested from the several cities of the state. 2 A copy of the form, 
as filled out by one of the cities, is printed as Table 11. 

The grouping of subjects in Table 11 has reference to the general ob¬ 
jectives sought in the elementary schools: 3 

1 See p. 174. 

2 Complete returns were received from one out of three of the first-class cities; from four out of seven of 
the second-class cities; from thirty out of forty-nine of the third-class cities; from forty out of forty-six of 
the villages of over 4,500 population; from two hundred twenty-two out of four hundred twenty-four union 
school districts having four-year high schools ; from forty-two out of one hundred twelve union school dis¬ 
tricts having three-year high schools ; from fifteen out of thirty-four union school districts having two-year 
high schools; from thirty out of forty-nine union school districts providing one-year high school work. 
A larger number of superintendents and principals filled out the blanks, but many of the returns were re¬ 
jected because they were incomplete or otherwise defective. 

3 For a definition of these objectives, see “ Elementary School Costs in the State of New York,” one of 
the publications of the Educational Finance Inquiry Commission. 


CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 49 


TABLE 11 


A Sample Copy of Report Used as Basis for Distribution of Current 
Expenses of Elementary Schools among Grades and Subjects 


Return to Hiram C. Case 

^ Elementary Program—Public Schools—New York State Education Dept’ 

"7name of city, village, or town..’ Q^s^vi .... Albany .N -Y 

I. Total number of minutes per week daring regular school hours devoted by Regular Grade Teacberi to each of the blowing: 


( 

Grade* 

r 

English 

R#*dio« 

Phonic* 

LHMWI 

Story T*)lla# 

OrU Encilob 

Com poalUoa 
Orumur 

SpWlIlQf 

Word Study 
Potuannahlp 

Library 

M.tnory-Ovn* 

Arithmetic 

Oral 

M*ntnl 

WrKton 

Work 

Altobr* 

Social Studies 

0«o«rnphy 

HI.' r. 

OoT.riurt.ot 

Civic# 

CIUl.n.Mp 

Health 

Instruction 

HllltBI 

Pbmtolocy 

Qnllot b#olr* 
Playground Work 
Roc#*# Period* 
Snfrty InMruoUoo 

SwImtuJo* 

Elementary • 
Science 

Wblur* Study 
G*n*r*J Scltne* 
BlolorloaJ arid 
PbywcaJ Sot one** 

AerlciUtur* 

General 

Exercises 

Opening K**rota#» 
t**nb | y ( u0 ( 

Foreign 

Languages 

Pno* 

L*Ua 

8b«nl*b 

And outer* 

Fine and Practical 
Arts 

Drawing 

Pr**h*nd 

M*chanlcaJ 

L*tt«rln( 

Color 

Pnlnilns 

Dawign 

Vocal bad 

ln*trum#n< Mualr 
Handwork 

Mutual Tralolac 
Shop 

Cooking 

B«wtog 

MJIUoaty 

Laundry^ 

Other Work 

of T*acb*n 

Not AcouuatPd 
for uod*r 

Pr.vlou* 

Hoad* 

Total Number 
Teachers 

Last Month 

Toul Minutes 
Per Week 
by Grades 
(Thl* should equal 
lh# turn of tb* 
ntuotar# of mlnut** 
la lh* Oral ata* 
columns s 

\ fJumber of 
Children 
in 

Average Daily 
Attendance * 
L^st Month 

(To (•< thl# flffur*. 
dJTld# total day# 
at i#o.Ur. * by nua, 
bar *f ■tea* caught 
ID «*alft.J 

Total Annual 
Salaries 
of 

Teacher* 

by 

Grades 

1921-192? 

Oo. 

MS 0.5 

IS 3D 

115 

o.nn 

is. r 

non 


200 5 



16856— 

770 . 

9lb7 00 . 

tv* 

HI 77 

linn 

// a. 

l30.5 

itet 

351 


1773 


tn'Vl. 

1736 7 

7/f 

17.370 

nra 

' SHOD 

HH-n 

1773 

19 79 

17 7 

375 


l/o 93 


7 ¥l 

17216, 

3 73 

ni9o 

r*or 

Si2.no 

<236,0 

3337 

17 mT 

nr 

Ml 


127.5 

2 52 


13 9.77 

3 52. 

II650 



2HU 

Z9U 

IS53 

IIS' 

¥53 


1272 


ahL 

Id 769 _ 

3 62- 

J1005. 

•a 

1 5125 

5?3l 

33i/r 

MIS 

ton 

¥31 


15 ¥7 

215 


m65 

363 

11275 

•***■ 

WM3 

2350 

3755 

16,63 

7.r 

7of 


1 ICO 

755' 

/D 

/ 6,735 

369 

17.170 

Xl*bt 

5/ 75 

33/D 

3/2/7 

1531 

!/> 5 

51D 


127/ 

133 7 

ID 

16777 

179 

17 610 

Ca«rWW 

Ip7D 

3to 

100 

loo 




Ho 

150 

/ 

1670 

!7 

1.3 to 


II Total number of minutes per week during regular, school hours devoted by Teachers of Special Subjects to each of the following 


Grades 

English 

Arithmetic 

Social Studies 

Health 

Instruction 

Elementary . 
Science 

General 

Exercises 

Foreign 

Languages 

Fine and Practical 
Arts 

Other Work 

Total Minutes 
Pex Week 

Total Number 
Special Teachers 

Total Annual 

Salaries 

1921-1922 

0 - 








151 


159 . 

5/xc 

A nr 

TV* 








153 


153 

3/xo 

ML.. 

fhn# 



~77i. 



rMj. tlSY 

\L 

133 


133 

3/olo 

-X73- 

r*tu 




£ a, 

r /\ n 


jA. Jpl^cnt 

• UL/L 


JJL5L 

3 /xo 


Hr# 


-"- 

//Ai 

<r 


, t c 

isvi. 'tf 

5jJ 

135 


/35 

3 /lt> 

223 

au 







•• 

195 


195 

3/xo 

273 

a«*ai 








1150 _ 


1110 

1 % 

1175 

debt 








2o50 


1050 

/ *%D 

16/0 


III Total number ol minutes per wepk during regular school hours devoted by Supervisors of Special Subjects to "each of the following. 


Grades 

i English 

Arithmetic 

Social Studies 

Health 

Instruction 

Elementary 

Science 

General 

Exercises 

Foreign 

Language* 

Fine and Practical 
Arts 

Other Work 

Total Minutes 

Per Week 

Toul Number 

Supervisors 

Total Annual 

Salaries 

1921-1922 

Om 

/do 







/OP 


200 s 



Tv* 

3D 







3£- 


120 



**"• 

3d 







9o 


-A 20 



r- 

75 









150 . 

y—L - 

*1110. 

rt»* 

75 


* 





75 



L- — 


•u 

75 







75 


ISO 



1- 

75 







75 


jjoI 



Us hi 

\ /DO 







/po 


100 J 




IV. Kindergartens: Children in average daily attendance last month 122 . No. teachers . //... . .Total annual salaries 


DATE.^^fttTt^.... 9 // 1 - 2 . 3 - 


FILLED OUT BY........SUPERINTENDENT 

..PRINCIPAL 


English includes all phases of reading, writing, English composition, 
spelling, grammar, literature, and the like. 

Arithmetic. 

The social studies include history, geography, government, civics, and 
citizenship. 

Health instruction includes hygiene, physiology, recess, and playground 
activities. 


































































































































50 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


Elementary sciences include nature study, general science, biological 
and physical sciences. 

General exercises are variously used for health instruction, for woik in 
the general field described by the social studies, or for some other special 
purpose. 

The foreign languages. 

Fine and practical arts include drawing, music, and industrial and house¬ 
hold arts. 

In order to make clear the precise method employed in utilizing the 
data, there is given in the table which follows a summary of the data for 
the fifth grade taken from the report of one city: 

TABLE 12 

SUMMARY OF DATA FOR THE FIFTH GRADE TAKEN FROM 
THE SPECIAL REPORT OF ONE CITY, 

STATE OF NEW YORK, 1922 


Subject 

General 

Instruction 

Special 
Instruction 1 

Special 
Supervision 1 

Minutes per week 
devoted to each 
objective by each 
regular teacher 

Minutes per week 
devoted to each 
objective by all 
teachers of spe¬ 
cial subjects 

Minutes per week 
devoted to each 
objective by all 
supervisors of 
special subjects 

English. 

525 

1677 

187 

Arithmetic. 

250 

1500 

188 

Social Studies. 

275 



Health Instruction. 

185 

5875 

534 

General Exercises. 

150 



Fine and Practical Arts. 

265 

21244 

1076 

••••••••• 

1650 

30296 

1985 


Total of All 

Total of All 

Total of All 


Regular 

Teachers of 

Supervisors of 


Teachers 

Special Subjects 

Special Subjects 

Salaries. 

$189,079.18 

$44,080.88 

$2,839.95 

Average Daily Attendance .... 

3259 

3259 

3259 


1 The contrast in number of minutes per week reported, as between regular teachers and teachers of 
special subjects or supervisors of special subjects, is due to the fact that a typical fifth grade teacher’s 
program is given in the case of one regular teacher, while all of the time devoted to the work of the fifth 
grades of the city by several special teachers or supervisors of special subjects is included in the record in 
columns two and three. It is obvious that the total salary charge for regular teachers is properly distrib¬ 
uted among the several subjects upon the basis of the single schedule given for one regular teacher. In 
the case of the teachers of special subjects and supervisors of special subjects the total charge for this grade 
was determined by taking the number of minutes spent by all of the teachers or supervisors responsible for 
instruction in this grade, in relation to the total number of minutes which they were employed in the school sys¬ 
tem, and then charging to this grade its due proportion of the total salaries paid these teachers or supervisors. 

The last item but one in the first column of this table is the amount 
expended for salaries of regular fifth grade teachers ($189,079.18); beneath 


































CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 51 


this is the average daily attendance for the fifth grade, 3,259 pupils. Di¬ 
viding the total expenditure for salaries by the average daily attendance 
gives $58.02, which is the per-pupil cost of services of regular classroom 
teachers for a year. This cost is subdivided into subject costs on the 
basis of time devoted to the various subjects by the regular fifth grade 
teachers. The total time scheduled for all subjects is 1,650 minutes. The 
cost per minute of instruction is, therefore, $58.02 divided by 1,650, which 
equals $.035163. This quotient of 3^- cents is then multiplied successively 
by the number of minutes devoted to each subject, which gives the fifth 
grade per-pupil expenditures in terms of the salaries of regular teachers. 
The calculation is as follows : 


.035163 X 525 
.035163 X 250 
.035163 X 275 
.035163 X 185 
.035163 X 265 
.035163 X 150 
Total 


$18.46 = English 
8.79 = Arithmetic 
9.67 = Social studies 
6.51 = Health 

9.32 = Fine and practical arts 
5.27 = General exercises 

$58.02 = Per-pupil cost for regular fifth grade teaching 


It should be noted that all the subject-cost figures on elementary 
schools are only translations of the teacher's time schedule into dollars. 
These figures measure in money terms the relative weight given to differ¬ 
ent subjects , and to a slight extent the number of children per teacher. 
The costs of the subjects will vary as the time devoted to them varies. 
Reducing the time for a subject and assigning that time to a second sub¬ 
ject will reduce the cost of the first subject but not the cost of the grade. 
The total cost of the grade to the district can be reduced only by reduc¬ 
ing the salary of the regular teacher or of the special teacher for that 
subject. Per-pupil costs per grade or subject will of course be reduced by 
any increase in the number of pupils per teacher of such grade or subject. 


In like manner, the expenditure per pupil for the teachers of special 
subjects and for the supervisors of special subjects is calculated. The 
calculations for one city, showing costs by grades and by subjects in 
terms of the work of classroom teachers, teachers of special subjects, and 
supervisors of special subjects appear in the following Table 13. 

Table 13 is to be read as follows: Of the salaries of regular classroom 
teachers chargeable against the first grade, the per-pupil charge for English 
was $34.43; for health instruction $4.52; for general exercises $3.48; 
for fine and practical arts $9.74. The total expense for the regular teach¬ 
ers’ salaries per pupil was $52.17. 

In like manner, the sum per pupil chargeable against this grade for 
teachers of special subjects is allocated as follows: English, $.36; health 
instruction, $.10; fine and practical arts, $.14; the total for teachers of 
special subjects, $.60 per pupil. For the supervisors of special subjects, 


Elementary School Costs — One City — State of New York, 1921-1922 

Distribution of Salaries of Regular Teachers, Teachers of Special Subjects, and Supervisors of Special Subjects among the Several 

Objectives, per Pupil Yearly, Based on Average Daily Attendance 


52 


FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 



■§-= 

^9 

C-O 

nr$ 

^3 

5 

fa 

o 

lo 

'^3 

d> 

t-* 

fa) 

cfa 

=K 
cN 
r— 

tr~ 

bo 

=*-* 

t— 

<T>^ 

cq 

to 

cr 

rO 

t- 

cr 

feq 

to 

bo 

<=s 

^9 

tO 



p 

cr- 

Cfa 

60 

to 

<*? 

<Z> 

Q 

bo 

bQ 

co 

• 

cr 

Cq 

to 

cs 

>-o‘ 

to 

tr-. 

£r- 

cr. 

CD 

CD 

t-* 


02 

EH 

O 

w 

*-5 

m 

P 

m 

< 

hH 

<D CJ <0 

.5*2 t 

>J- Q. ■< 

rO 

3* 

€©.‘ 

to 

co 

=n 

cr 

fa-. 

t- 

-~s 

=n 

OO 

CN 

ar 

fa 

!=*; 

6o 

co 



u c c 

l£ •- 0 
<D -1 













c • 

Q) X 

o ^ 













o 

H 

CH 

m 

fa 

o 

* CD 
. ' — o 













£ 

CJ 

o> 

3= 

bo 

a 

c>* 

OH 

rO 

<=i 

rh 

to 

CO 

^9 

CO 

• 

to 

bo 

cs 



m 
« 
O 
02 
i—i 

> 

PS 

fa 

1 

O — 

Q d 
C/D • *■* 













Jt ,o 
At -k 

Ju q, 

*“*: E 

ey¬ 

es 

90 

o 

bo 

6o 

cq 

6o 

o 

cr 

CD 




c ^ 

—9 



fa 

P 

CO 

&>-C 

c </> 

i-U 

Cr 

o 

CD 

CO 

bo 

O 

bo 

cq 

cr 

o 

<3 

fa 

« 



O 




_d 

■O 

fa 

3- 

t-; 

6o 

co 

fa» 

co 

t- 1 

co 

to 

co* 

cr 

rO 

CD 

<D 

cO 

zr 

zh 

tr 

cr* 

Cn} 

CS 

t— 


CO 

<D o m 

«=*« t 

U- C 

3- 

CT 

in 

bO 

CO* 

6o 

rr 

cr 

CD 

CD 

tO 

to 

<r>e 

c— 

cq 

CD 

n^9 

zr* 

CS 

cq 

to 



fa 

>-5 

ffl 

/ C E 

,o ,2> U 













P 

CO 

fa 

« dj 
o 













HH 

U 

fa 

. I CD 

— ; — o 
Lu O r- 
to a; 













fin 

m 

fe 

4E 

J 

o 

«o 

n- 

cq 

<o 

to 

C^J 

CO 

fa) 

CN 

co 

rr 

c-i 

on 

CO 

cr 

n— 
to 

c( 

t- 

of 

ci 

tr 

5 



o 

CO 

fa 

fa 

« 

o 

£ d 
co - — 












-i ,t> 

•c 1 


Co 

«o 

CO 

CO 

b- 

fa 

Co 

fa) 

3- 

to 



3- 

lO 



fa 

H 

QP-C 

c .£ 

i-U _ 

fa 

°n> 

* 

Cr- 

Cjo 

co 

tfa 

to 

t-; 

t~ 

bo 

6o 

cd 


tr- 

=*- 

rr> 

cr 




1 

CN 

t- 

CO 

c>? 

5*- 

V-O 

to 

c- 

E 

CO 

CN 

£ 

tr- 

o 

CD 

v^9 

'=*■ 

<=D 

st- 

cO 

=t" 

bo 

t— 

>^9 

CD 

2: 

bo 

s. 

co 

rq 

g 

c— 


cx> ci </) 

•Eos^t 

Cl. 

-1 - 
t— 

•_cr 

cV 

on 

fcd 

S5 

Jr 1 

•o 

to 

6o 

cfa 

cO 

cr 

to 

fa» 

cr 

cH 

C? 

o~ 

Cr 

cH 

w 


cq 

CD* 

**- 


CO 

fa 

■ = C 

% .sr a 

u. <u —1 











c 

CU 

-+- 

fa 

W 

O 

<; 

C fa 

6o 

3- 

to 

CT7 

3- 

t— 

rO 

to 

CO 

t- 

c-H 

L3 

fa 

3- 

trs 

5 

cr 

60 

r* 

fa 

fa 

£ 

CO 

fa 

fa 

u3 

iL 

0 

00 

fa 

Eh 

1 <D 

_: — o 

lu y c 

CD 












ai 

■a 

c 

S 

O 

O 

fa 

02 

CO 

< 

-£Z 

~a 

o* 

It 

pH 

zr 

to 

c- 

■3*" 


K 

fa? 

to 

5 

to 

to 

tor 

co 

3- 

CH 

f» 

o 

fa 

Jr-> 

£ 

o 

bo 

cqr 


CO .fa 


r— 

to 

o 

S 

cr 


. to 

3 

co 

CD 

cT> 

t- 

o« 

O 

CS 

5 

tr 

CD 

erf 

% 

-4— 

07 

O 

O 

o 

Jr c? 

* — 

*z -fc 

-C E 


<fa> 

In 

0O‘ 

bo 

t-* 

o 

Oo 


<=> 

VO 

CO* 

3-. 

Cr 

c; 

o- 

^3 

cf 

co 

^9 

rr> 

O* 

CN 


OP -C 
SZ t CP 
UJ HZ 

<o 

3“ 

3-* 

5r 

to 

co 

D- 

Cr-‘ 

of - 

<*? 

s 

of 

•fa) 

3- 

bo 

cr 1 

k 

bo 
- ^2 

r- 

m 

Of 

nO 

• 

3 

cr 

r 

c-( 

cs 

«o* 

3- 

' Q — 

3 

Q 


tD 

-T3 

B 

o 



co 

rh 

tO 

-fa 

+- , 

,£tii 



Jjo 

g ; t 

t-H — 

v ‘a- 

=> a. 

OO 


































































CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 53 


the amounts per pupil chargeable against this grade are allocated as fol¬ 
lows: English, $.09; arithmetic, $.09; health instruction, $.18; fine and 
practical arts, $.43 ; the total for supervisors of special subjects, $.79 per 
pupil; the grand total of the salary charge per pupil for this grade is $53.56. 

Salary Costs of Regular Teachers by Grades and by Objectives. — The 
variation in expenses incurred for the salaries of teachers by grades and 
by objectives is indicated in Table 14. 

TABLE 14 

CURRENT EXPENSES — ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS — CERTAIN THIRD- 
CLASS CITIES, VILLAGES OVER 4,500, AND UNION SCHOOL 
DISTRICTS — STATE OF NEW YORK, 1921-1922 

Salaries of Regular Teachers by Grades and by Subjects 


(The Figures Give the Limits within Which the Middle Fifty Per Cent **of the Cases 
Fall, Calculated to the Nearest Whole Dollar per Pupil in Average Daily At¬ 
tendance) 



Third- 

Class 

Cities 

Villages 

over 

4,500 

Four- 

Year 

Union 

Three- 

Year 

Union 

One- 

Year 

Union 


Grade Two 

$19-23 

$16-26 

$16-23 

$15-32 

$18-26 

English 

Grade Five . . 

11-19 

12-17 

12-19 

11-29 

13-34 


Grade Eight . . . 

14-25 

9-17 

13-25 

13-38 

13-40 


Grade Two 

4-6 

5-8 

5-8 

5-11 

5-9 

Arithmetic 

Grade Five 

5-8 

6-8 

5-9 

5-13 

6-12 


Grade Eight . . . 

6-11 

7-10 

7-14 

7-21 

10-18 


Grade Two . . . 

1-2 

1-2 

1-3 

1-2 

1-3 

Social Studies 

Grade Five . . . 

7-9 

6-10 

6-10 

6-14 

6-17 


Grade Eight . . . 

6-11 

6-12 

7-15 

9-18 

10-17 


Grade Two 

4-7 

3-8 

3-7 

3-6 

2-6 

Health 

Grade Five . . . 

4-6 

3-5 

3-5 

3-6 

3-7 


Grade Eight . . . 

3-7 

2-6 

2-6 

3-8 

3-7 


Grade Two 

1-1 

1-1 

1-2 

1-2 

.4-1 

Elementary 

Grade Five . . • 

.4-1 

1-2 

1-2 

1-3 

1-2 

Science 

Grade Eight . . . 

1-6 

1-2 

1-3 

2-4 

1-3 


Grade Two . . . 

1-2 

1-2 

1-2 

1-3 

1-3 

General 

Grade Five . . • 

1-2 

1-2 

1-2 

1-3 

1-3 

Exercises 

Grade Eight . . . 

1-3 

1-2 

1-4 

1-4 

1-4 

Fine and 

Grade Two . . . 

3-5 

2-4 

1-3 

1-2 

1-3 

Practical 

Grade Five . . • 

3-5 

2-4 

1-3 

1-2 

1-2 

Arts 

Grade Eight . . • 

4-8 

2-6 

2-5 

2-5 

1-4 


Grade Two 

34-47 

32-46 

31-45 

28-60 

31-50 

Total 

Grade Five . . . 

36-44 

31-43 

31-46 

32-62 

33-75 


Grade Eight . . . 

43-58 

35-47 

35-64 

33-94 

44-100 


i The middle fifty per cent is found by cutting off the lowest and highest quarters of the distribution. 
The remaining two quarters — or fifty per cent — is composed only of cases which cluster around the center. 





























54 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


The first line of the table is to be read as follows: In third-class cities, 
the amount of regular teachers’ salaries spent for teaching English in the 
second grade, ranges from $19 to $23 for the middle fifty per cent of the 
cases. One-fourth of these cities show an expense of less than $19, and 
one-fourth an expense of more than $23. In like manner, the salary charge 
for teaching English in grade two, in villages with a population of more than 
4,500, ranges from $16 to $26; in union free school districts maintaining a 
four-year high school, from $16 to $23 ; in union free school districts main¬ 
taining a three-year high school, from $15 to $32; and in union free 
school districts maintaining a one-year high school, from $18 to $26. In 
each case the middle fifty per cent of the cases fall within the limits re¬ 
corded. The calculation in every case is to the nearest whole dollar. 

These variations in expenditures are due not only to differences in sal¬ 
aries paid to teachers, but even more particularly to variations in the time 
allotted to the teaching of the several subjects of the elementary school 
curriculum. The omission of one or more of these subjects would not or¬ 
dinarily change the total expenditure for salaries of regular teachers for 
the grade, since the salaries would not be diminished by the omission of 
any one of the subjects. 

The total salary charge tends to increase from the lower grades to the 
upper. This is due partly to a tendency to place the better trained and 
more mature teachers in the upper grades and partly to the fact that the 
average daily attendance per teacher tends to be somewhat smaller in the 
upper grades than in the lower. 1 

The variation in the amount of salary charged against the several grades 
and subjects is given somewhat more fully in terms of a single measure in 
Table 15. The measure used is the middle case, and the calculation is to 
the nearest whole dollar. . This means that in each case one-half of the 
cities reporting had a higher charge per grade or per subject than that re¬ 
corded and one-half had a lower charge. These figures are more significant 
for the third-class cities, villages, and union free school districts than for the 
first and second-class cities, since more reports were received from these 
smaller communities. 

The variation in costs in Table 15 is merely another way of expressing 
the variation in time allotted to the several subjects. The assumption is 
that a teacher’s time is equally valuable at any hour of the day, and when 
used for the teaching of any one of the subjects of the curriculum. From 
the figures in Table 15 it appears that the cost of teaching English is some¬ 
what higher in the lower grades than in the upper. This is due to the fact 
that reading, writing, and spelling occupy more time in the lower grades 
than do literature, grammar, and composition in the upper grades. In 

1 It was found that teachers’ salaries for any given grade were approximately uniform in the different 
communities throughout the state. 


CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 55 


TABLE 15 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COSTS — CITIES, VILLAGES OVER 4,500, AND UNION SCHOOL 

DISTRICTS — STATE OF NEW YORK, 1921-1922 


Current Expenses (Middle Case) for Salaries of Regular Teachers by Grades and by 

Subjects, per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance 



Grade 

English 

Arith¬ 

metic 

Social 

Studies 

Health 

Elemen¬ 

tary 

Science 

Gen¬ 

eral 

Exer¬ 

cises 

Fine 

and 

Prac. 

Arts 

Total 


1 

$34 

$— 

$— 

$5 

$— 

$3 

$10 

$52 


2 

36 

9 

— 

5 

— 

5 

8 

62 


3 

30 

8 

2 

6 

— 

4 

8 

58 

First-Class 

4 

20 

9 

9 

7 

-- 

5 

9 

59 

Cities 

5 

18 

9 

10 

7 

— 

5 

9 

58 


6 

19 

9 

10 

7 

— 

5 

10 

60 


7 

20 

10 

14 

7 

— 

5 

9 

65 


8 

22 

10 

10 

8 

— 

6 

12 

68 


1 

30 

4 

1 

8 

1 

3 

6 

49 


2 

29 

6 

1 

9 

2 

2 

6 

49 


3 

24 

8 

4 

8 

3 

2 

6 

49 

Second-Class 

4 

20 

9 

8 

7 

o 

2 

4 

47 

Cities 

5 

19 

9 

8 

7 

2 

2 

4 

47 


6 

18 

10 

10 

6 

1 

2 

6 

47 


7 

20 

10 

11 

7 

1 

1 

6 

47 


8 

23 

9 

9 

6 

1 

2 

7 

52 


1 

25 

4 

1 

5 

1 

2 

4 

41 


2 

22 

5 

1 

4 

1 

1 

4 

40 


3 

19 

6 ' 

3 

5 

1 

2 

4 

41 

Third-Class 

4 

15 

6 

6 

5 

1 

1 

4 

41 

Cities 

5 

15 

6 

7 

5 

1 

1 

4 

39 


6 

15 

8 

9 

5 

1 

1 

5 

44 


7 

14 

8 

8 

5 

1 

2 

5 

45 


8 

16 

9 

8 

5 

2 

2 

6 

49 


1 

20 

6 

1 

5 

1 

2 

3 

41 


2 

21 

6 

1 

5 

1 

2 

3 

41 


3 

18 

7 

3 

5 

1 

2 

3 

41 

Villages 

4 

17 

7 

6 

4 

1 

2 

3 

39 

over 4,500 

5 

15 

7 

8 

4 

1 

1 

3 

40 


6 

14 

8 

10 

4 

1 

1 

3 

40 


7 

14 

8 

11 

4 

1 

1 

4 

42 


8 

14 

9 

10 

5 

1 

1 

4 

40 


1 

20 

5 

1 

4 

1 

2 

2 

35 


2 

22 

5 

3 

4 

1 

2 

2 

37 

Union School 

3 

17 

7 

4 

4 

1 

1 

2 

36 

Districts 

4 

16 

6 

5 

4 

1 

1 

2 

35 

Four-Year 

5 

15 

7 

8 

4 

1 

1 

2 

37 


6 

14 

7 

9 

4 

1 

1 

2 

37 


7 

16 

8 

10 

4 

1 

2 

2 

42 


8 

17 

9 

10 

4 

2 

2 

3 

46 


1 

21 

6 

2 

3 

1 

3 

2 

35 


2 

23 

8 

2 

4 

1 

2 

2 

39 


3 

18 

8 

5 

4 

1 

2 

1 

38 

Three-Year 

4 

21 

8 

6 

4 

1 

2 

2 

46 


5 

20 

8 

8 

4 

2 

2 

2 

50 


6 

16 

8 

12 

3 

1 

2 

1 

42 


7 

18 

11 

12 

4 

2 

2 

2 

48 


8 

17 

11 

12 

5 

3 

2 

3 

47 


1 

23 

6 

1 

4 

1 

2 

1 

41 


2 

17 

6 

2 

5 

1 

2 

2 

39 


3 

16 

6 

4 

4 

1 

2 

1 

38 

Two-Year 

4 

16 

7 

7 

4 

1 

2 

1 

40 


5 

18 

10 

9 

6 

1 

2 

2 

48 


6 

18 

9 

8 

5 

2 

2 

2 

43 


7 

15 

12 

9 

6 

2 

2 

2 

63 


8 

15 

12 

8 

6 

2 

2 

2 

46 


1 

22 

4 

1 

4 

1 

1 

1 

35 


2 

25 

8 

1 

4 

1 

2 

1 

40 


3 

18 

7 

4 

4 

1 

2 

1 

36 

One-Year 

4 

22 

9 

5 

4 

1 

2 

2 

41 


5 

23 

7 

10 

4 

1 

2 

2 

43 


6 

15 

8 

9 

4 

1 

1 

i 

37 


7 

18 

12 

12 

4 

2 

3 

3 

54 


8 

22 

16 

12 

4 

2 

2 

l 

54 





























56 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


like manner, there is a tendency to give more time to arithmetic and thereby 
to raise the cost of its teaching from the fifth grade on. History and geog¬ 
raphy are ordinarily emphasized from the fourth through the eighth grade, 
with a stronger tendency to emphasize these and other social studies in 
the sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. Health instruction and physical 
education run rather evenly in cost. Apparently the time used in giving- 
such instruction is about the same in all of the grades of the elementary 
school. Elementary science and general exercises follow the same rule. 
As indicated by larger costs the fine and practical arts show some tendency 
toward emphasis in the upper grades, in third-class cities, and in villages 
of over 4,500. In all of the communities and in all grades the time and money 
devoted to the so-called fundamentals — English , arithmetic, and the social 
studies — is usually two-thirds or more of the total. 

In the data for individual communities, which it is impossible to 
present here, very great departures from these figures, indicating central 
tendencies, are found. Such variations suggest the desirability of scru¬ 
tinizing carefully the time allotted to the various subjects of the curriculum 
in relation to the results which are secured. 

Aggregate Salary Costs of Teaching and Supervision per Pupil in Eight 
Elementary Grades. — In many of the school systems of the state special 
teachers who devote their time to some one subject such as music, drawing, 
manual training, cooking, and the like, supplement the work of the regular 
classroom teachers. In other systems, persons called supervisors of special 
subjects teach these special subjects, and are in some degree responsible 
for the training and direction of the regular classroom teacher in the fields 
in which she is least well equipped. There are also supervisors or direc¬ 
tors of the work done by special teachers. An inquiry concerning the cost 
of this type of service was instituted. The cost by subjects and by grades, 
as well as by communities of various sizes, was determined. One gets a 
fairly adequate picture of the situation from the table on opposite page. 

The first line of Table 16 is to be read as follows : In one of the first-class 
cities referred to, the total charge for the salaries of regular teachers in all 
eight grades is $481 per pupil. In like manner, the salary charge for the 
teachers of special subjects is $72, and for supervisors of special subjects $7. 

The second section of the table is to be read as follows: In four of the 
second-class cities, the highest city expenditure for salaries is $514; the 
average is $413; and the lowest is $359. These figures all refer to the 
total expenditure, for the salaries of regular teachers, for the grades one to 
eight inclusive. 

For these same cities the highest charge for the salaries of teachers of 
special subjects is $49 ; the average $20; and the lowest $17. The highest 
charge on account of salaries of supervisors of special subjects is $50; the 
average $17; and the lowest $8 


CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 57 


TABLE 16 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COSTS — CITIES, VILLAGES OVER 4,500, AND 
‘ UNION SCHOOL DISTRICTS — STATE OF NEW YORK, 1922 

Aggregate Salary Costs, per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance, of Regular 
Teachers, Teachers of Special Subjects, and Supervisors, for the 
Whole Elementary School Period, Grades One to Eight Inclusive, 
Calculated to the Nearest Whole Dollar 


Grades 1-8 

Regular 

Teachers 

Teachers op 
Special Subjects 

Supervisors of 
Special Subjects 

Grand 

Total 

HIGH MIDDLE LOW 

CASE 

high middle low 

CASE 

high middle low 

CASE 

high middle low 

CASE 

First-Class Cities 
(1 case) 

$481. 

$72. 

$7. 

$561. 

Second-Class Cities 
(4 cases) 

514. 

413. 1 

359. 

49. 

20. 1 

17. 

50. 

17. 1 

8. 

542. 

447. 1 

359. 

Third-Class Cities 
(30 cases) 

472. 

323. 

147. 

140. 

31. 

15. 

44. 

18. 

4. 

540. 

356. 

225. 

Villages over 4,500 
Population 
(40 cases) 

449. 

303. 

223. 

134. 

32. 

16. 

65. 

23. 

.73 

• 

449. 

355. 

223. 

4-Year Union 
Schools 
(222 cases) 

926. 

305. 

130. 

None 

None 

926. 

305. 

130. 

3-Year Union 
Schools 
(42 cases) 

976. 

365. 

173. 

None 

None 

976. 

365. 

173. 

2-Year Union 
Schools 
(15 cases) 

718. 

381. 

119. 

None 

None 

718. 

381. 

119. 

1-Year Union 
Schools 
(30 cases) 

680. 

305. 

185. 

None 

None 

680. 

305. 

185. 


1 Average. 


It is not possible from these figures to find the total amount to be charged 
per pupil on account of teachers of special subjects and supervisors of 
special subjects. There is only one city reporting regular teachers, teach¬ 
ers of special subjects, and supervisors of special subjects in the field of 
practical arts. In two cases only are regular teachers and teachers of 



























































58 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

special subjects employed; while in one of the four cases above referred 
to no charge is made for special teachers or supervisors of special subjects 
for the fine and practical arts. These figures are then to be interpreted 
as giving the charge for this particular type of service wherever it may be 
found, but it will be necessary to guard against the assumption that both 
types of service are found in each of the cities. 

Less than half of the cities of the third class report special teachers and 
supervisors of special subjects in any one of the subjects of the elementary 
school curriculum. These figures, and those for villages as well, indicate 
the amount of the charge for the city spending the largest amount of 
money, for the middle case, and for the city spending the smallest amount 
of money, where only those cities employing this particular type of ser¬ 
vice are included. It is, therefore, not possible to add the two charges, 
teachers of special subjects and supervisors of special subjects, and to ar¬ 
rive from such addition at a total charge for services of special teachers and 
supervisors. 

It will be observed from the table that in union free school districts 
maintaining three-year high schools and in union free school districts 
maintaining two-year high schools, the middle case expenditures for sal¬ 
aries of regular teachers in elementary grades are relatively high — higher 
in fact than the corresponding charge in all divisions except first- and sec¬ 
ond-class cities. 

In further explanation of Table 16 it is necessary to call attention to the 
fact that “supervisors of special subjects” are in some school systems 
actually special teachers, and that “ special teachers ” may in some cases 
do certain supervisory work. 

The summary reported above, and the more detailed facts upon which 
this compilation is based, seem to indicate the desirability of inquiring 
further into the cost and service rendered by special teachers and by su¬ 
pervisors of special subjects. 


Kindergarten Costs 

An inquiry was instituted concerning the cost of kindergartens for the 
years 1920 and 1921. Prior to these years the State Department of Edu¬ 
cation did not call for a segregation of kindergarten salaries and pupils 
from those of the eight grades of the elementary school. Even in 1920 
and 1921 many of the reports failed to make separate returns for kinder¬ 
gartens. The fact that these classes are conducted in the same building 
side by side with the lower grades of the elementary school, and under very 
much the same general conditions, probably leads many school executives 
to include them in their elementary school reports. A wide variation in city 
kindergarten costs is indicated in Table 17. 


CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 59 


TABLE 17 

KINDERGARTEN COSTS — CITIES — STATE OF NEW YORK, 1920, 1921 

Total Current Expenses, Teachers’ Salaries, and Current Expenses Other 
than Teachers’ Salaries per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance 

(Note : Arrows indicate middle case in the group and the middle case in the 

upper and lower half of the group) 


Total Current Expenses 


CITIES 

1919 

-1920 

First-Class 

RANK 

AMOUNT 

Buffalo 

1 

$ 75 

Rochester 

2 

61 

Second-Class 



Albany 

1 

77 

Syracuse 

2 

70 

Troy 

3 

~*~69 

Yonkers 

4 

66 

Third-Class 



Olean 

1 

151 

N. Tonawanda 

2 

95 

Cohoes 

3 

88 

Oneonta 

4 

84 

New Rochelle 

5 

83 

Mount Vernon 

6 

78 

Canandaigua 

7 

->■75 

Geneva 

8 

67 

Watertown 

9 

64 

Rensselaer 

10 

63 

Oswego 

11 

63 

Tonawanda 

12 

62 

Niagara Falls 

13 

61 

Elmira 

14 

->-58 

Lockport 

15 

58 

Saratoga Springs 

16 

56 

Port Jervis 

17 

54 

Glens Falls 

18 

51 

Amsterdam 

19 

51 

Poughkeepsie 

20 

49 

Jamestown 

21 

-*-48 

Little Falls 

22 

45 

Dunkirk 

23 

44 

Lackawanna 

24 

42 

Watervliet 

25 

41 

Rome 

26 

40 

Hudson 

27 

33 


CITIES 

1920-1921 

First-Class 

RANK 

AMOUNl 

Buffalo 

1 

$110 

Rochester 

2 

81 

Second-Class 



Yonkers 

1 

88 

Albany 

2 

79 

Schenectady 

3 

-*-71 

Syracuse 

4 

48 

Utica 

5 

46 

Third-Class 

# 


White Plains 

1 

113 

New Rochelle 

2 

111 

Mount Vernon 

3 

104 

Cohoes 

4 

97 

Elmira 

5 

96 

Olean 

6 

92 

Mechanicville 

7 

86 

Oneonta 

8 

83 

N. Tonawanda 

9 

82 

Saratoga Springs 

10 

81 

Cortland 

11 

80 

Oswego 

12 

80 

Auburn 

13 

76 

Port Jervis 

14 

-> 75 

Canandaigua 

15 

73 

Watervliet 

16 

71 

Tonawanda 

17 

70 

Lackawanna 

18 

69 

Amsterdam 

19 

67 

Watertown 

20 

67 

Geneva 

21 

66 

Hudson 

22 

62 

Lockport 

23 

60 

Jamestown 

24 

60 

Little Falls 

25 

59 

Rome 

26 

59 

Poughkeepsie 

27 

56 

Dunkirk 

28 

21 














60 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


TABLE 17 ( Continued) 

KINDERGARTEN COSTS — CITIES — STATE OF NEW YORK, 1920, 1921 

Total Current Expenses, Teachers’ Salaries, and Current Expenses Other 
than Teachers’ Salaries per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance 

(Note : Arrows indicate middle case in the group and the middle case in the 

upper and lower half of the group) 


Teachers’ Salaries 


cities 

1919 

-1920 

First-Class 

RANK 

AMOUNT 

Buffalo 

1 

$46 

Rochester 

2 

39 

Second-Class 



Albany 

1 

45 

Yonkers 

2 

43 

Syracuse 

3 

^43 

Troy 

4 

42 

Third-Class 



Olean 

1 

87 

New Rochelle 

2 

51 

Cohoes 

3 

50 

Mount Vernon 

4 

48 

N. Tonawanda 

5 

48 

Canandaigua 

6 

47 

Elmira 

7 

->-39 

Oneonta 

8 

39 

Rensselaer 

9 

38 

Oswego 

10 

38 

Geneva 

11 

36 

Saratoga Springs 

12 

35 

Niagara Falls 

13 

35 

Watertown 

14 

->-34 

Tonawanda 

15 

33 

Glens Falls 

16 

33 

Port Jervis 

17 

32 

Lockport 

18 

32 

Jamestown 

19 

29 

Poughkeepsie 

20 

28 

Amsterdam 

21 

->-27 

Dunkirk 

22 

27 

Water vliet 

23 

26 

Rome 

24 

26 

Little Falls 

25 

25 

Lackawanna 

26 

24 

Hudson 

27 

23 


CITIES 

1920-1921 

First-Class 

RANK 

AMOUNT 

Buffalo 

1 

$70 

Rochester 

2 

52 

\ 

Second-Class 



Yonkers 

1 

59 

Albany 

2 

52 

Schenectady 

3 

->-48 

Syracuse 

4 

34 

Utica 

5 

32 

Third-Class 



White Plains 

1 

72 

Elmira 

2 

67 

New Rochelle 

3 

66 

Mount Vernon 

4 

65 

•Mechanicville 

5 

55 

Cohoes 

6 

55 

Auburn 

7 

53 

Cortland 

8 

52 

Saratoga Springs 

9 

49 

Canandaigua 

10 

49 

Watervliet 

11 

49 

Geneva 

12 

47 

Olean 

13 

46 

Oswego 

14 

45 

Port Jervis 

15 

^44 

Amsterdam 

16 

42 

Tonawanda 

17 

42 

N. Tonawanda 

18 

42 

Lackawanna 

19 

41 

Rome 

20 

39 

Watertown 

21 

39 

Hudson 

22 

39 

Oneonta 

23 

37 

Lockport 

24 

36 

Jamestown 

25 

35 

Poughkeepsie 

26 

35 

Little Falls 

27 

32 

Dunkirk 

28 

14 


















CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 61 


TABLE 17 ( Concluded) 

KINDERGARTEN COSTS — CITIES — STATE OF NEW YORK, 1920, 1921 

Total Current Expenses, Teachers’ Salaries, and Current Expenses Other 
than Teachers’ Salaries per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance 

(Note : Arrows indicate middle case in the group and the middle case in the 

upper and lower half of the group) 


Current Expenses Other than Teachers’ Salaries 


CITIES 

1919 

-1920 

First-Class 

RANK 

AMOUNT 

Buffalo 

1 

$29 

Rochester 

2 

22 

Second-Class 



Albany 

1 

32 

Troy 

2 

27 

Syracuse 

3 

^27 

Yonkers 

4 

23 

Third-Class 



Olean 

1 

64 

N. Tonawanda 

2 

47 

Oneonta 

3 

45 

Cohoes 

4 

38 

Geneva 

5 

31 

New Rochelle 

6 

32 

Watertown 

7 

->-31 

Mount Vernon 

8 

29 

Tonawanda 

9 

29 

Canandaigua 

10 

28 

Lockport 

11 

26 

Niagara Falls 

12 

26 

Rensselaer 

13 

25 

Oswego 

14 

->25 

Amsterdam 

15 

23 

Port Jervis 

16 

21 

Poughkeepsie 

17 

21 

Little Falls 

18 

21 

Saratoga Springs 

19 

21 

Elmira 

20 

20 

Jamestown 

21 

->-19 

Glens Falls 

22 

19 

Lackawanna 

23 

18 

Dunkirk 

24 

17 

Watervliet 

25 

15 

Rome 

26 

15 

Hudson 

27 

10 


CITIES 

1920-1921 

First-Class 

RANK 

AMOUNT 

Buffalo 

1 

$40 

Rochester 

2 

29 

Second-Class 



Yonkers 

1 

29 

Albany 

2 

27 

Schenectady 

3 

->-23 

Syracuse 

4 

15 

Utica 

5 

14 

Third-Class 



Olean 

1 

46 

Oneonta 

2 

46 

New Rochelle 

3 

45 

Cohoes 

4 

42 

White Plains 

5 

41 

N. Tonawanda 

6 

40 

Mount Vernon 

7 

39 

Oswego 

8 

34 

Saratoga Springs 

9 

32 

Port Jervis 

10 

31 

Mechanicville 

11 

31 

Elmira 

12 

29 

Lackawanna 

13 

28 

Tonawanda 

14 

28 

Cortland 

15 

28 

Watertown 

16 

27 

Little Falls 

17 

27 

Amsterdam 

18 

25 

Canandaigua 

19 

25 

Jamestown 

20 

25 

Lockport 

21 

24 

V 

Auburn 

22 

23 

Hudson 

23 

23 

Watervliet 

24 

23 

Poughkeepsie 

25 

22 

Rome 

26 

20 

Geneva 

27 

19 

Dunkirk 

28 

8 






















62 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


The data in the table relate to cities only. Corresponding figures for 
villages show an even more marked variation, the expenditure per pupil 
ranging from $21 to $141 in 1920, and from $18 to $372 in 1921. The 
figures suggest desirability of inquiring into the size of classes and the 
length of the kindergarten day. Some kindergartens were apparently 
operated with an average daily attendance so small as to entail a per-pupil 
cost that is difficult to defend. On the other hand, the average daily 
attendance was so large in some cases as to indicate either that two half¬ 
day sessions were held, or that the teacher was given an unusually heavy 
load. In these cases, of course, the per-pupil costs were correspond¬ 
ingly low. It does not seem probable, however, that the variation in ex¬ 
penditure can correspond to a variation in the educational opportunity 
provided or the results secured. 

Current Expenses for High Schools 

The current expense for high schools, per pupil in average daily attendance, 
is calculated by using the formula already explained, on page 43. The 
relation of high school salaries to salaries for the whole school system 
is used to determine what part of the other non-salary current expenses 
should be charged to high schools. For example, if high school salaries 
amount to one-fourth of the total salaries paid by the school system, then 
one-fourth of all of the other current expenses are charged against high 
schools. Increases in the current expenses for high schools from 1911 to 
1921 appear in Table 18. 

Table 18 is to be read as follows: In first-class cities the average current 
expense for high schools is $89 in 1911; $100 in 1916; and $183 in 1921. 
The table shows that current expenses for high schools have approximately 
doubled during the ten-year period in the cities of the state. The average 
increase for villages of over 4,500 in population is 60 per cent. In the 
smaller communities of the state, providing from one to four years of high 
school education, the expenses for high schools are in the extreme cases 
higher than any of those reported for the cities or larger villages. For 
the year 1921, in these union school districts, the high cases showed ex¬ 
penses per pupil in average daily attendance as follows: The four-year 
union schools $1,107; three-year union schools $1,132; two-year union 
schools $781; and one-year union schools $773. 

The variation in high school costs is indicated on Diagram 5. 

An analysis of expenses in the union school districts shows that these 
very high costs are due both to the expenses for teachers’ salaries and to 
other current expenses. These small schools have in many cases very small 
classes. In the communities showing the highest expense, the charge 
for salaries of teachers ranges from $520 to $603 per pupil in average daily 
attendance. In these same communities the current expense, other than 


CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 63 


salary, ranges from $243 to $786 per pupil in average daily attendance. 
An analysis of increases in expenses for high schools as between expenses 
for teachers’ salaries and total current expenses appears in Table 19. 


TABLE 18 

HIGH SCHOOL COSTS — CITIES, VILLAGES OVER 4,500, AND UNION 
SCHOOLS — STATE OF NEW YORK, 1911, 1916, 1921 

Current Expenses per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance 


First-Class Cities 
Average . . 

High . . . 

Low . . . 

Second-Class Cities 
Average . . 

High . . . 

Low . . . 

Third-Class Cities 
Average . . 

High . . . 

Low . . . 

Villages over 4,500 
Average . . 

High . . . 

Low . . . 

Union Schools 1 
Four-Year 
Average 
High . . 

Low . . . 

Three-Year 
Average 
High . . 

Low . . . 

Two-Year 
Average 
High . . 
Low . . 

One-Year 
Average 
High . . 

Low . . 



1 The figures for Union Schools were available only for the years 1920 and 1921. 

Table 19 is to be read as follows: Among the first-class cities, the one 
showing the lowest cost spent $43 per pupil for teacheis salaries in 1911, 
and $104 for this service in 1921. In the same group the city having the 
lowest total current expense per pupil in average daily attendance spent 
$60 in 1911, and $161 in 1921. The per cent increase in teachers’ salaries 










































64 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


_ 




<D 


43 a> 

o S 

« O 

03 GQ 

O ~ 

A U 

TJ i 
P 

O H 


• m 

• o 

o o 

9 ^ 

LO O 

^ CQ 
a> o 

og 

CD ^ 

9> «H 
M 03 
03 4) 

3 t* 
►> ^ 


OD 05 05 

o o o 
o o o 

43 43 43 
o o o 
GO GO GO 
(3 S3 S3 
.2 .2 .2 
'3 "3 '3 
PPP 

fcH lH t- 

03 03 03 

m <u m 

>h ^ !* 

i i i 

ro <N r-l 



• <n • 

.Si 

«S ?? -4> .2 

j* £ o « 

^ o m ^ 

» m Oi ” 

| JS:S 
^ O ti 9 

«3 ' (3 T3 

CQ O .^4 
£ O *P 
y <u p 
fe CD H 


iO 

2 

<! 

Ph 

o 


oo 

i-H 

^03 

3 

o3 

H 


o3 

Q 

a 

o 

<U 

02 

o3 

PQ 



S3 S3 S3 

t> t> t) 

h h h 

o3 c3 c3 
a> a> a> 

!* !* 
I I 1 
M N H 



• 

• 

• 

05 

_ro 

jn 


m 

• 

• 

O 

"o 

o 

"o 

t o 

m 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

’-3 

.2^ 

o 

43 

43 

43 

43 

• <—< 


iq 

o 

CJ 

o 

o 

o 

r5 

Tin' 

02 

GO 

CO 

CO 


.. S3 S3 (3 S3 

m m _0 _0 o O 

o 3 3 '5 '3 

° A A & to 

0 > fc. U (-. Ih 

M c3 03 03 cj 

ci « « os o 

= >H 

I I I I 
r ^ CO Cl H 


t 


























CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 65 

between 1911 and 1921 was 142, while the increase in total current ex¬ 
penses was 168 per cent. 

* TABLE 19 

HIGH SCHOOL COSTS — CITIES AND VILLAGES OVER 4,500 — STATE 

OF NEW YORK, 1911, 1921 

Total Current Expenses Compared with Teachers’ Salaries, per Pupil in 

Average Daily Attendance 



Teachers’ 

Salaries 

Total Current Ex¬ 
penses 

Percentage 

Increase 

Teachers’ 

Salaries 

Percentage 

Increase 

Total 

Current 

Expenses 


1910-1911 

1920-1921 

1910-1911 

1920-1921 

Low 







lst-Class Cities . . 

$43 

$104 

$60 

$161 

142 

168 

2d-Class Cities . . 

36 

77 

45 

114 

114 

153 

3d-Class Cities 

24 

38 

36 

68 

58 

87 

Villages over 4,500 . 

26 

43 

39 

76 

65 

95 

Middle Case 







lst-Class Cities 

64 

132 

82 

175 

106 

113 

2d-Class Cities . . 

51 

87 

66 

130 

71 

97 

3d-Class Cities 

41 

70 

59 

113 

71 

92 

Villages over 4,500 . 

45 

84 

77 

125 

87 

62 

High 







lst-Class Cities . . 

101 

134 

124 

212 

33 

71 

2d-Class Cities . . 

72 

109 

93 

165 

51 

77 

3d-Class Cities 

77 

196 

131 

332 

155 

153 

Villages over 4,500 . 

137 

163 

209 

268 

19 

28 

Number of Cases 







lst-Class Cities . . 

3 

3 





2d-Class Cities 

7 

7 





3d-Class Cities . . 

38 

49 





Villages over 4,500 . 

27 

56 






The table shows that in most of the cases teachers’ salaries increased less 
rapidly than all current expenses. The same conditions which called for 
the increases in teachers’ salaries apparently increased the cost ot the other 
services and supplies used in high schools. 

The wide variation in current expenses of high schools suggests the 
advisability of careful inquiry, not only as to the excessive costs found 
in some of the smaller communities, but also as to the quality of the 
opportunities provided in those schools showing the lowest cost. It is 
also reasonable to ask whether the educational facilities furnished by 
the expensive schools could be obtained at a more reasonable cost. 
There would seem to be some possibility of effecting economy through 
consolidation. 

Some light is thrown upon the variation in the expenses for high schools 
by an analysis of the expense involved in teaching various subjects. 




























66 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


In many cases the expense per pupil in average daily attendance is par¬ 
tially explained by the teaching of certain subjects in which very few pupils 
are enrolled. Table 20 shows some of the variations which occur. 


TABLE 20 

HIGH SCHOOL COSTS — CITIES, VILLAGES OVER 4,500, AND UNION 
SCHOOL DISTRICTS —STATE OF NEW YORK, 1921-1922 


Salaries of Regular High School Teachers by Subject and Year of 
Course, 1 per Pupil in Average Daily Attendance 





All Cities 

Villages over 4,500 

4-Year Union 
Schools 


Subjects 

Year 


Limits with- 


Limits with- 


Limits 


in 

Middle 

Case 

in Which 

Mid- 

in Which 

Mid- 

within 



High 

Middle 

die 

Middle 

die 

Which Mid- 



School 

50 % of 

Case 

50% of 

Case 

die 50% of 





Cases Fall 


Cases Fall 


Cases Fall 

1. 

English . 

I 

$11 

$ 6-16 

$ 8 

$ 4-14 

$ 9 

$ 4-15 

2. 

English. 

IV 

14 

9-19 

15 

11-19 

20 

13-31 

3. 

Latin. 

I 

14 

11-18 

13 

7-19 

14 

9-18 

4. 

Latin. 

IV 

36 

24-56 

40 

19-59 

78 

47-133 

5. 

French . 

I 

15 

12-18 

15 

10-19 

18 

13-27 

6. 

French . 

III 

20 

15-27 

27 

18-38 

40 

27-70 

7. 

Elementary Algebra 


14 

11-17 

13 

8-17 

14 

8-18 

8. 

Solid Geometry . . . 


22 

16-32 

40 

32-57 

59 

45-100 

9. 

History. 

A 

12 

6-18 

8 

4-14 

14 

9-19 

10. 

History. 

C 

14 

10-17 

14 

9-30 

21 

14-35 

11. 

Chemistry. 


22 

11-29 

22 

16-28 

21 

14-30 

12. 

Physics. 


20 

13-28 

25 

18-32 

30 

19-49 

13. 

Home Economics . . 

I 

23 

13-30 

18 

13-37 

21 

14-32 

14. 

Home Economics . . 

III 

25 

15-38 

18 

14-30 

29 

16-52 

15. 

Elementary Drawing . 


14 

8-18 

12 

5-17 

14 

7-23 

16. 

Intermediate Drawing . 


20 

14-30 

17 

2 

20 

8-55 

17. 

Bookkeeping .... 

I 

17 

12-23 

17 

12-27 

27 

17-42 

18. 

Stenography .... 

I 

17 

13-29 

19 

4-30 

31 

18-46 

19. 

Stenography .... 

II 

26 

18-35 

22 

15-50 

50 

29-105 


1 The number of cases varies in each subject and in each class of district. 

2 Too few cases to make limits significant. 


It should be noted that all the subject-cost figures on high schools are 
only translations of the teacher 7 s time schedule into dollars. These figures 
measure in money terms the relative weight given to different subjects, 
and the number of children per class or section in a subject. The cost of 
the subjects will vary largely as the time devoted to them varies. Re¬ 
ducing the time devoted to a high school subject, or even eliminating it 
from the curriculum, will seldom reduce noticeably the total high school 
cost. For the high school students have elections and must take a re¬ 
quired number of units per year. Dropping one subject merely means 












































CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 67 


that they must secure an equivalent credit for work in some other subject 
that will cost the district about as much . 1 Per-pupil costs in any subject 
will of course be reduced by any increase in the number of pupils per 
teacher , per class or section in such subject. 

The first line of Table 20 is to be read as follows: When expenditures 
for the teaching of first-year English were calculated, the cost in the middle 
case city was $11 per pupil, while costs for the middle fifty per cent of 
the cities range from $6 to $16 per pupil. In like manner, for villages, 
the cost of the middle case is $8, and the limits within which the middle 
fifty per cent fall are $4 and $14. For four-year union schools the middle 
case is $9, and the limits within which the middle fifty per cent fall are $4 
and $15. If the extreme cases were reported, they would show much 
greater variability. In some of the smaller high schools it costs more 
than $150 per pupil to teach certain of the subjects offered. 


Evening Schools — Adult Education 


In many communities throughout the State of New York evening 
schools are established for those not attending day schools. This part 
of the state’s educational program is sometimes referred to as “ adult 
education.” 

Data were obtained through the State Department of Education for 
four types of evening school work : (1) immigrant education, (2) grammar- 
grade education, (3) industrial education, and (4) home-making education. 
Immigrant education includes classes in elementary English and Ameri¬ 
can citizenship for persons 16 years of age and over. Grammar-grade 
education includes classes in which the work is equivalent to that in grades 
five to eight inclusive in the day schools. These classes are often prepara¬ 
tory to entrance to evening high schools. The industrial and home-making 
classes include non-vocational as well as vocational work. 

The data here presented include returns from 1,094 classes in 75 different 
communities, with a total average attendance pei session in the classes 
reported of 13,400. 2 The sampling includes all sizes and types of cities 
and villages and a few rural communities. The individual class 3 was the 
basis upon which the data were compiled, and the study sought to deter¬ 
mine the unit clock-hour cost. Upon this basis estimates may be made 
of the probable cost of work in these and closely related fields when this 


i According to unpublished results from the Illinois division of the Educational Finance Inquiry the 
reduction " cost of current expenses attainable through reducing the curricula of twelve large high 
schools to four subjects, would be comparatively little. This possible reduction ranged n-om IS- 79 per 
cent in one school to .42 of one per cent in another school, the median for the twelve schools being 8.79 

^2 iTwas ^impractfeabte ^ascertain the total attendance of the evening schools for the whole state. 

3 When information was lacking regarding each class separately, the material was rejected, unless t e 
length and number of sessions in the classes reported in a group were identical. 


68 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


part of the educational program is extended. The unit cost was deter¬ 
mined according to the following formula : 

__ Amount paid to teachers _ = Cost per pupil 

Number of j Number of hours 1 j Average attendance j clock hour 

sessions ^ \ per session J \ per session j 

Unit costs so determined are reported in the table given in footnote. 1 

It will be observed that the cost is figured only upon the teachers’ salary. 
If it were possible to obtain the complete cost, there would probably need 
to be added about 33 per cent to the per-teacher cost. This estimate is 
based upon the fact that in an analysis of the budget for day schools 
approximately 75 per cent of the cost is chargeable to the salaries of teach¬ 
ers. Table 21 gives the salary cost of instruction per student per clock 
hour in four of the home-making courses. 

In the column headed “ Cost per Student per Clock Hour ” will be found 
a measure which indicates roughly the relative cost of maintaining the 
various courses. The variation among the several communities of the 
state appears in that part of the table which gives the “ Range of Unit 
Costs in Different Communities.” These variations, as indicated in 
the table, show minimum costs as low as 6.1 cents per hour per student, 
and a maximum of 31.2 cents per student clock hour. 

Similar calculations were made with respect to the expenses for salaries 
for instruction in industrial education in evening schools, as shown in 
Table 22. 

The salary cost per student per clock hour when calculated upon the 
basis of the whole number of classes and of students enrolled ranges from 
13.6 cents per student clock hour in woodworking to 16.2 cents per student 
clock hour in machine shop work. It will be observed that these costs 
are slightly higher than those involved in the home-making courses, and 
that the variations among them are greater. The lowest cost reported 


1 PER-PUPIL CLOCK-HOUR COSTS, TEACHERS’ SALARIES ONLY, 1921 

Computed on the basis of a five-hour day with 200 days of school for first- and second-class cities, 190 
days for third-class cities, and 180 days for all other communities. 


. 

Elementary 

Schools 

Secondary 

Schools 

Cities 



First-Class . 

6.3 cents 

12.4 cents 

Second-Class. 

5.4 cents 

9.3 cents 

Third-Class. 

4.3 cents 

7.9 cents 

Villages over 4,500 . 

4.5 cents 

10.0 cents 

Union Schools 



Four-Year. 

4.5 cents 

11.1 cents 

Three-Year. 

5.4 cents 

13.1 cents 

Two-Year. 

4.3 cents 

17.7 cents 

One-Year. 

5.1 cents 

17.2 cents 






















CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 


69 


CM 

CM 

05 


CO 

p 

p 

*-s 

o 

2 

I—I 

Q 

Z 

w 

Ph 

<5 

m 

>* 


^ W 

CM pi 


H 

P 

« 

H 


O 

>* 

£ 

W 

z 

o 

w 

H 

<d 

gq 

P 

O 

CO 

W 


Z 

P 


o 

u 


P5 

p 

o 

ffi 

M 

P 

o 

a 

U 

K 

W 

Sh 

H 

S5 

W 

o 

p 

Eh 

CO 

a 

a 

CL, 

z 

o 

HH 

H 

< 

P 

P 

Q 

w 

o 

55 

— 

< 


a 

S 

o 

ffi 

o 

z 

rH 

55 

a 

> 

W 


£ 

o 

Eh 

P 

P 

a 

Eh 

cd 

Z 


a 

o 

to 

Eh 

CD 

o 

o 

5« 

a 

< 

a 

<5 

CO 


/. 

a 


oo 

Eh 

ID 

o 

U 

Eh 

5 

P 

a 

o 

a 

o 

z 

< 

pH 


55 

p 

s 

s 

o 

O 


O HJ 
*o a 

£5 

.2 0 ) 

5 Ph 


h O 05 CO 
^ TT CO N 


I 


I 


(O K 6 N 

h a> o o 

f“H C 1 »H T“* 


CO 

H 

l" 

00 

05 

o 


Max. 

<m o h 

rH GO O ^ 
CO H CO w 

$.312 

a 



a 

Hjl Hf Hj, ID 

00 


^H (M rf 

(N 

Q) 

rH rH rH rH 

rH 

PH 




CO H CO CO 

^H 


tH. CO 00 00 

CO 

PH 

o o o o 

o 

<5 




« a 

«g g 

a ^ ° 
p h P 

g a g 

6“s 

co O 


_ 3Q 

2 « 
< QO S 

^ 3 s 

H ® ivi 


H ZH 

O l-H 

H S 


a k 
h B 


•< 

o 

a 

a 

o 

p 


oK 

55 

a a 

Eh p> 


o 

<! H 

CO 


o 

a 

Q 


o 

z a 
a w 


Eh 

Eh 

< 

a 

> 

< 


a 

p 

5 co 


a 

a 


03 

a 

m . CD 

S a 03 
g O H- 
P a 
Z O 


a ■ S 
a s S 
a o h 
SOS 

P *H 

£ £ P 

Z o g 


ID 

Eh 

P 

a 

a 

P 

co 


co co a ^ 
CM CM —< CO 


Tt< 

CM 


o o o o 

10*0 0 0 

I ~ I" 1-H N 
•O CM TfH Tf 

r-H rH 05 p 

P p os" P 

t-H t-H 


o 

o 

CO 

1^ 

CO_ 

cm' 

H< 

fe^ 


o *o *o 00 

00 05 O 05 

Ocf'iON 
05 CO 05 CO 
H 05 CO O 

cm" P P CO 

H rt 00 CO 


00 

1^ 

00 

f 

*o 

V 

H< 

co 


co 

CM 

05 

C5 

CO 

cq 

CM 

CM 

cq 

*o 

os’ 

P 

05 

cm’ 

*d 

co 


CM 

o 

co 

05 

05 


CO 

o 





co 


Tf 05 CO O 
CO *0 CO 


O 

CM 

CM 


H CM CO tJH 


bC 

0 

p *>. 

2 £? M 

M 9 g .£ 
.9 g -9 -a 

* £3 § 

GG Q O 


o3 

+-> 

O 

Eh 


CM 

CM 

05 


CO 

!* 

p 

p 

>-> 

O 

Z 

L-H 

Q 

Z 

W 

P? 

<< 

w 


a 
P 
o 

W 

a 

p 

o 

w d 

Ph 


CM 

CM 

w 

p 

PQ 

Eh 


O 

>h 

W 

z 

p 

o 

w 

Eh 

<< 

Eh 

co 

P 

O 

co 

P 

LH 

Eh 

l-i 

z 

p 


o 

o 

Q 

H 

Eh 

O 

H 

P 

P 

co 


a 

a 

a 

Eh 

z 

a 

a 

P 

Eh 

co 

a 

a 

a 

55 

o 

HH 

Eh 

«J 

P 

P 

a 

P 

a 

M 

a 

Eh 

CO 

P 

a 

z 

»—i 

C5 

55 

h* 

z 

a 

> 

P 


z 

o 

tp 

Eh 

P 

I P 

oo « 

CD 

55 


Eh 

co 

O 

O 

z 

o 

HH 

Eh 

o 

p 

Q 

P 

P 

<1 

hH 

Ph 

P 

CO 

p 

Q 

Z 

*—i 

o 

z 

hH 

Z 

P 

> 

P 


a 

c 

CD 

Eh 

CD 

O 

o 

>H 

a 

Hi 

a 

< 

co 


Eh 

55 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 


CO 

a 


§ § 
o | 

g! 

a 

o ' 

a 

o 

55 

Hi 

Ph 


a a 
a a P 
S a o 
S aW 

5? LJ 

a « 
a 
P 


Eh 

ID 

O 

O 


p 
3 

a J 


fi § « 

*<i ° a 
p • a 

aSg 

E^H 

^5^ 


co 

W « 

H P 


Hj 

o 

a 

a 

o 

o 


a ^ 
p o 

§ s 

aE 

H ^ 

55 a M 

a Eh P 

a EH o 

P H< a 


a 

^ a 
a a 
Eh a 


Eh 

a 

!> 

< 


a 

p „ 

5 co 


a 

a 


ID 

a 

ffl r CD 

H a id 
S O H) 
P a 
Z O 


a i 
a g 
a o 

S O 

►5 a 

Z o 


CD 

Eh 

P 

a 

a 

P 

co 


05 CM CO 
CO CD *o CO 

i —I >—I 1—I H 


o o o o 
0 0*00 
lOHcio 
oo co 05 
co co <o *o_ 

P co oo cd 


o 

*o 

oo 

00 

d" 


*D CO >C Hji 

T—I O LH O 
cd cm co' 05 

•HJH ^H *C 00 
*C *C 05 00 

H *d P 05 
CO 00 *0 05 


l> 

CO 

6 

o 

<05_ 

^H 

CM 


*0 O *C CM 
CM CO 00 

05 cm cd *d 

O 05 H CO 
CM *0 *C f- 


CM 

co 

p 

CO 

o 

CM 


lO CM *C 00 
rH *0 CO *0 


o 

CO 


CO Tt< 


Middle 50 

Per Cent 

$.146-189 

.142-203 

.152-211 

.135-.173 

.142-194 

.134-. 188 

*o 

05 

r 

05 

co 

rH 

fed 

Max. 

!DHNh)( 
05 h}H CO O 

t—i cq q cq 
fed 

.667 

.417 

$.667 

Median 

05 ^ ‘O 

co go 

rH rH rH ?H 

.169 

.164 

$.169 

Min. 

05 rt* o O 
00 *C O CO 

ooho 

<d 

Tfl 

o o 

iO 

q 


CO 

Hj< 


m 


o 

*o 

CM 

05 

o 

CM 


CO 

m 


*o 

cq 

cd 

05 

CM_ 

p 

Tf 


CM 

o 

p 

05 

rH 

co 

HjH 


HfH 

00 

tH 


CO 

o 

cd 

'•O' 

CM 

co 


o 

o 


o 

D 

CM 


00 

CM 


.g'S 

h-h a • 
c« O 
O P 

3 P 

^ ■** a 
® Ti o 

05 0 P 

p s» 

P 45 

o o. 3 
O O .3 

§ p p 
505 « 


1 

c 


a 

.2 ■ 
p 
a 
w 

3 M 

-r) a 

C3 o 

•g e: 

« g 
a o 


Sp£ 


0> 


o 

o> 

? 

DQ 


D 

O 

fl 

0) 


CO 


2 

I O 

'o ^ — 

S’OrS 3 
a o®- 
S o . q 
> (so 9 
^ a 2 

a hq ^ p 

■H h 03 -*-> 
rt a a 

O ^ _H 


T3 

a 

hP> 


3^ 

O H -a P =*) H 

H^w.a§ 

Ph 


C3 

o 

Eh 

03 

3 

a 

u 

O 



































































































































70 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


is 5.4 cents per student clock hour, while the highest cost shown is 66.7 
cents per student clock hour. 

The salary charge for instruction in the four types of evening school 
work — immigrant education, grammar-grade education, industrial edu¬ 
cation, and home-making education — appear in Table 23. 

These totals for each type of education are significant in showing that 
home-making courses are operated at the least expense, immigrant educa¬ 
tion comes second, grammar-grade education third, and industrial educa¬ 
tion highest. The range of unit costs among the different communities 
varies all the way from 3.3 cents to 41.7 cents per student clock hour. 

For the City of New York, the 1921 teachers’ salary cost per student 
clock hour was 19 cents for evening high and evening trade schools, and 
9.3 cents for evening elementary schools. 

Special Education 

It was not possible, from the reports available in the state office, to seg¬ 
regate the costs of various types of special work. These have been in¬ 
cluded in the expenses for elementary and for secondary schools, in con¬ 
nection with the regular work of which schools, special classes for the 
physically handicapped, the backward, and the delinquent have been 
conducted, and will doubtless continue to be so conducted. Since the 
total cost of these special classes forms only a small fraction of the aggregate 
school expense, it will, for practical purposes, be safe to assume that their 
costs will increase at approximately the same rate as total school costs. 

Current Expenses for Higher Education 

Higher education in the State of New York is provided primarily by 
non-tax-supported institutions. Of the $25,056,022 spent for higher edu¬ 
cation in the state during 1920, $22,024,306 was derived from private 
sources. The costs of higher education in the State of New Y r ork for 1910, 
1915, and 1920 are given in Table 24. These figures include the expenses 
for private institutions and for public institutions other than those for 
training teachers, and the sums made available by the state for scholarships. 1 

*It is interesting to note that larger numbers of students, attending universities, colleges, technical 
and professional schools, go from the State of New York to institutions located in other states than come 
from other states to attend higher educational institutions located within the State of New York. The 
facts as reported by Mr. George F. Zook in his “The Residence of Students in Universities and Colleges,” 
United States Bureau of Education, Bulletin, 1922, No. 18, p. 9, are as follows: 

Number of students whose residence is in the State of New York attending universities, colleges, 

technological, and professional schools in the United States, 1921 . 55,130 

Number of students whose residence is in the State of New York attending institutions located 

within the state. 40,036 

Number of students whose residence is in the State of New York attending institutions located out¬ 
side the state. 15,094 

Students attending universities, colleges, technological, and state professional schools within the 

State of New York, 1921 49,282 

Students residing in New York attending institutions located in the state . :.9,246 

Excess of students leaving the State of New York to attend higher educational institutions over 
those coming into the state for this purpose 


5.848 








CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 71 


CO 

04 

H 

P 

PQ 

< 

Eh 


04 

04 

05 


CO 

p 

p 

P 

0 

£ 


Q 

£ 

P 


PJ 
t3 
O 

« w 


<1 

w 


M 

P 

o 

£ 

H 

£ 

P 

O 

P 

H 

<C 

H 

02 

P 

O 

m 

P 


£ 

P 


O 

O 

0 

p 

Eh 

O 

P 

P 

P 

02 


02 

Eh 

02 

O 

o 

p 

O 

O 

B 

O 

02 

O 

£ 

>—< 

£ 

p 

> 

p 


w 

y 

o 

a 

O 

« 

w 

cu 

e* 

fc 

w 

o 

t> 

H 

02 

P5 

W 

ft 

CO 

a 

O 

o 

w 

y 

02 

o 

z 

HH 

55 

w 

> 

P 


5s 

o 

H 

y 

O 

« 

H 

CO 

z 


ft 

O 

to 

H 

to 

O 

O 

ft 

« 

<! 

a 

< 

m 


CO 

« 


to h 
H S 
to Z 
O p 

J a 

fh s 

5 O 

a O 

P 

ft 

o 

a 

o 

z 

H 

Ph 


« 

a 

ft 

ft 

to 

O 

O 


« « 
g a 
^ o 

ftK 

z 

a a 

a y 


cc O 


to 


g ft ^ 

«! ° « 
cl a a 
2 W 
a 3 y 

ft 02 a 

O z Eh 
Eh h 


to 

a « 

H B 


O 

a 


« a 
o Q 


o 

< 


st 
® § 


w ^ 
o • 

5« 

a B 

z 

a a 

B 8 


a 

0 


a 
z a 
a a 

ft ■ 
ft 
<< 

a 

> 

< 


a 

y 

55 

c 


a 

a 

a 

s 

a 

£ 


CO 

a 

CO 

CO 

<1 

a 

U 


ei I 

a § 2 
a o ft 

SO 5 

£ a a 
£ o g 


a 

o 

to 

a 

a 


55 

o 

ft 

ft 

h 

y 

a 

Q 


H P 


0 -ft 

co 0 10 co 

co 

>o a 

CO 04 00 CO 

rH 

a> ft 

04 04 r-t T-H 

04 

"5 ^ 

f i r r 

U- 00 ^ 

r 

co 

<U 

O 04 CO O 

rH 

p P 

i-H r-H t —* rH 

rH 



<2> 


CO 00 ft- CO 



0 -ft 1-1 0 

rH 

ftH 

^ CO Tfi 04 

Tf 


00 

v> 

a 



c3 

0 00 CO 00 

5.0 


»c 10 N H 


0? 

rH rH rH rH 

rH 



40 


co 

co 

o 


CO *H CO 
to ft o 
O O O 


CO 

co 

o 

</> 


(ft 

04 


00 04 -h 
CO >0 04 


co 

co 


o 

00 

p 

1C 

ft. 

04" 

00 


o o 

-ft iO 50 

CO 06 © 
CO 00 CO 

rH 00 00_ 
ft" 05 H 

co >o 


ft. 

05 

05 

co 

CO 


04 


O 




CD 

CD 

ID 

05 

CO 

t- 

iO 

rH 

co 

04 

co 

*0 


00 

50 

CD 

L- 

ib 

co 

-ft 

rH 

rH 

rH 

00 ' 

t-’ 

oT 

IO 

ID 

50 

04 

GO 

CD 


Tjt 

^ft 

iD 


z 

lO O CO 05 


0 

Tf< rH lD 

co 

cn 

rH (N co co 

0 

CQ 

1 — 1 — 0 t- 

0 

w 

CD Tt* CD 


m 

50 co co 

co 

rH 


CO 

tft 

Tf< 


tft 

CO 


O *H 

o 00 

CO 04 


H 

05 

o 


50 

co 


00 O co 

H CO N 


1 

• a 

o 

a ,5 

o ^ 
P P 
a 

O fli 

a % 

©J 03 

H o 
a i 
a a 

&1 

I * 

Jo 


. . a 

o 

• a a 

• -J a 

■g "0 
. § W 

• 73 a 

H -a 

• "m a 

■i s 

Goto 

Sag 

ft'O o 

a P 

HH HH 


03 

•P> 

O 

H 


a 

.2 

o3 

o 

0) 


tn 

<D 

CL 

-P> 

(m 

O 

u-< 

0) 

-a 

-p> 


<D 

a 

o 

a 

o3 

-p> 

<D 

tn 

O 

a 

M 

a 

> 

a 

as 

TO 

ft 


a 

a 

a 

a 

o 

o 

y 

a 

o 

co 

n 

.a 

’-*2 

• H 

a 

a 

a 

a 

o 

o 

"a 

a 

-a 

ft 

-3 

a 

• 

M-H 

o 

ft 

ft 

as 

a 

a 

a 

o 

as 

-ft 


on 

as 

Eh 




















































72 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


T* 

N 

w 

fa 

PQ 

<1 


O 

N 

05 


lO 

t-H 

05 


05 

rH 

W 

Ph 

o 

fa 

£ 

w 

£ 

fa 

o 

fa 

fa 

<5 

H 

02 


02 

55 

O 

PH 

Eh 

«3 

P 

fa 

<3 

fa 

fa 

Eh 

fa 

fa 

fa 

O 

fa 

fa 

Q 

£ 

C 

m 

Eh 

cq 

O 

O 

fc 

O 

HH 

fa 

<3 

O 

P 

Q 

fa 

fa 

fa 

fa 

0 


H 

OQ 

Z 


J 

« 

& 

fa 

05 

fc 

O 

H 

to 

E-* 

T-H 

Ei 

® 

!z; 

i—i 

B 

E-i 

H 

> 

r-t 

« 

fa 

W 

Z >—S 

Q 03 
w Ch 
Eh w 

3 W 

Eh >® 

►h K 


H H 

o 

•-H ffi 

hr ° 

o m 

»-l ri 

ssg 

a ^ 
§02 
fa 


a 2 


O £ 

M CO 

® X 

P M 

a 2 

x s 

s 

Q ^ 

M K 

xfa 

£ « 
O a 


B P-H 
0- 

o h. 


w « 
a a 


sJ° 


Q 

Z 

H 

X 

O 

M 

Eh 

X 

O 

a 

Q 

fa 

K 

a 

w 

o 


« 

o 

a 

05 

a 

® 

Z 

a 

a 

X 

fa 


X 

Eh 

« 

a 

a 

o 

a 

fa 

a 

o 

a 

a 

a 

X 

fa 


<o 

X 

X 

a 

Eh 

a 

o 

a 

X 

Eh 

t-H 

P* 

< 

0 


05 

a 

05 

x 

a 

a 

X 

fa 

a 

z 

a 

« 

« 

a 

0 


— ~a 

a © 
fa fl 

fa^ 


U 

<2 "a 

_ a 

fa O 

<D *HH 

CO +* 

p g 

fa 3 H 

-S'fafa 
ofa 
fa 


©<> 

g a 
a +? 
C3 02 
CS - 
O g 
fa o 
PP 


a 

O 

fa 


fe 0 


05 -g 

.2 a 

JH H 
c3 ^ 

o3 d 




a 

o 

fa 


a 

x 

a 

o 

fa 


05 

a 

a 

a 

a 

ax 

Q 

Z 

a 

a 

X 

fa 


OOh 

rtlOTf 

a-05 

PPoo 
a- co 05 
HO co 

P of P 

H®0 


a- t-h co 

th co co 
CO COH 

(NNCO 

co oo a- 
<n cooo 

oVo 

t-H lO 05 


05 05 ic 
05 t-H tH 

r-H t-H tH 

PpN 
t* fn N 
05 io »G 

PooP 


IN 

CO 

lO 


tH 05 lO 
COHN 
COHN 

CO* P N 

co a« in 

05 lO lO 
CO* 00* 05* 



t-H t-H t-H 



rfH CO 

lOOOOO 

05 05 IO 

N 

ICON 

*C 00 T* 

05 HN 

CO 

N t-h T* 

O 05 CD 

^H t-H I>» 

io 

N CO p 

t-h cd 

P P N 


CO 00 N 

00HO 

-r i ' n 

r-H 

oooco 

oo »o oo 

05 IO lO 


Ot* o 

cDCOO 

MOO 

ica-05 

P 00 P 


^ T-H 





a- 05 io 

COHN 

COHN 

co Pin* 

co a- n 

05 lO iq 
CO* 00* 05 


aoa 

05 CO 

oioa- 

COCO o 
co a- in 

i-H OJ 

m 


a- >o 

05 -Ol CO 

qqa 

co co" o" 
co a- in 

t-h 04 


05 CO 

o *o a- 

co'co'o 
co a- n 

f-HlM 


(N H CO 
Ht< Hfl CO 
0 05_CO 

P O* CO* 
05 oo *o 

COT* CD 

Nhh 

m 


co a- co 
> 00(0 
h* t* uq 

PodP 

IN T* CO 
<N t-h CO 
Ol t-h t-h 


co^a 
oo co co 
io_iqa 

OONO 
CO CO N 

T-H CO 


a-5Ct^ 
05 T* CO 

ouqa^ 
co Po 

co a- in 

T-H CH 


05 05 

oo oo 

T* 05 

pp 

io 


io IN lO 

T* 00 

cq cqoo 

03 O P 
co t* oo 

1—I IO H* 

Pao" 


t- o >o 
io 05 IO 
COC5 O 

oo*cdo 

CO H T* 

>oo)iq 

Pood 


00 <N O 
T-h IO CO 
o cqoo 

hOOO 
ON CO 
CO CO 05 


O 

co 

oo 


00 N O 

T-H lO O 

O COO 

ppp 

O N CO 
CO CO 05 


CON O 
05 OcO 
OOHq 

P®V 

N CON 

co oo co 


CON O 
05 O CO 
00 hh t* 

PON 
N CO N 
CO 00 CO 


CON O 
050CD 
00 t-h T* 

P PP 

N CON 

co oo co 


T* TO 05 

05 05 O 

U3 CO 05 

T-H 00 o 

t*00C5 

o 

rfH ^ (M 

co tn oo 

tH lO T* 

00 T* 

N t* 05 

co co >o 

CO G5 rH 

ONt^ 

o >o CO 

©T* t> 

05 T-H 05 

iOt-h N 

t* oq cq 

05 Tt< rH 

LQ 

t-h T-h 05 

PPoo" 

T-H N © 

ppp 

PPP 

CO rH oT 

o od c7 

CO 00 05 

O © 00 

N 00 t-h 

N CO CO 

05 t— i a- 

^H lO rH 

oo co 

co_cqcq 

iqtH cq 

T-h 00© 

CO ON 

tnQON 

O Tt< 00 

i-H CO ^ 

o’Pm" 

t-H t-h N 

m 

P N* o* 

T-H N 

T-H T-H CO 

t-H t-H 

T-H 




CO CON 
OHM 
t-h qo 

Pried 
n co io 
OHO 

PPP 

tH i-H N 


io CO CO 
coco o 
iqoocq 

P N* P 

CO T* N 

a^oo 

Htdei 

T-H t-h N 


t— i O CO 

I - *C ’—i 

iqcqa^ 

0"»H 
C5 T-H CO 
N N O 
Hcicd 


OOCOtn 
T-h 05 lO 

cq^co^cq 
o mo* 

05 T* CO 

t* co a- 


CO fn 05 
io IO KO 

oscqcq 

05 l O T-H 

05a- 
t>00N 


a 

•u 

CQ 

a 

•H O 


ICO 
t-h N 

I I 

T* 05 


a i 

05 

a° 

rr\ 05 05 05 

'"hhh 

*a 

o 

fa 


g © 
o 2 

i 30100 

O »—< r-t 

facQ I I I 
!»o22 

f|S22 

a ‘C 

45Q. 


H w 
a © 

fa JjOiOO 
3hh,-h<M 

§CQ05t*05 


o 


s* 


o 

t- 


a © 


^3 t-H rH 


N 


CQ fa 
— £> 
a 3 
-Hfa 

fa 

cd 


'fa 05 05 05 


fa 

3 

fa s 
"a B 
o M 

fa 


OlOO 

t-H t-H 

I I I 
Oi C5 

t-H 

05 05 OS 


OQ 
<D 

"omo 

C5 -3 T-H T-H N 

Ofa Sill 

fa 35 r* 05 
H ^ O H H 
—H O 05 05 

H CjHHH 

— o 
o3 O 

fa 


>o 


on^ 

ON ^ 
O T* T* 

Oh® 

ONtJI 

iqiqrq 

P PP 


NNt* 
CO 05 CO 

coco cq 
wcici 

MON 

■<* cq cq 
N N 


ON t-h 
ONt* 
O T* ■T* 

O PP 

O T* 

iq>0 h* 

p pp 


a- a- t* 
CD 05 CO 

coeqeq 

m‘nm" 
MON 
T* OO 

N*N* 


05 05 
00 00 
T* cq 

pp 

«©*o 


O 05 io 

io co co 

COT* *o 

o PP 

T* 05 lO 
T* N IO 

m 


OOCOIO 
CO 00 CD 

cqoo t* 

O 05* o* 
CO N 00 
t-H CO CO 


05 co a- 

T* 00 I-H 

T* T* t-h 

P P N* 

T-H O rH 

CO lO 00 


T* T* N 
ONt# 

qqq 

o*od®‘ 

OOCOIO 

hHCOt* 


u 

o 

>1 

-u r 

O © & _ 

w 3oOOO 

a«s 'is J ' 

t-l . M 

O o 

^ OJ ^PPo5 

bD o >T_< *“• hH 


N 

^,pp05 
OO ■ ■ 


^ ©. 


© 

fa >4 
■^12 
«*-! o 

0>H 

I I I 

05 T* 05 

^3 rH t-H 

05 05 05 
(t> ' HH t-H 

-t-3 H5) 

30 

a 


u 












































































CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 73 


While not appearing as a separate item, federal aid is included in the total 
spent from public sources, to the extent of $68,000 in 1910; $116,587 
in 1915; and $352,896 in 1920. 

It will be observed that the total spent for higher education within the 
state has almost doubled in the period from 1910 to 1920, and that the 
expenditures from private as well as from public sources have also doubled. 
The amount contributed by the state government to institutions controlled 
by the state has increased almost three times, while the amount expended 
from local sources has increased only about sixty per cent. 1 

Training of Teachers in Tax-Supported Institutions 

Teachers are trained for service in the State of New York in several 
different types of institutions. The state maintains one college for the 
training of teachers and ten normal schools. High school graduation is 
required for entrance to all of these institutions. The State Teachers 
College offers a four-year course, and since 1922 the normal schools are 
offering three-year, instead of two-year, professional courses. There are 
seven training schools in the larger cities of the state which offer a two-year 
professional course, and require the completion of a four-year high school 
course for entrance. The work done in them is entirely comparable to 
that in the state normal schools. In 1921 forty-three training classes, 
offering a one-year course based upon high school graduation, were main¬ 
tained by local school systems with aid from the state. 

Beside these facilities, special courses in preparation for teaching are 
offered in the College of the City of New York and also in Hunter 
College, the woman’s college maintained by the city. The state does not 
contribute to the expenses for maintenance of these institutions, but it 
does grant university scholarships of $100 annual value, some of which are 
used by students in the State College for Teachers. 

The aggregate expenses for the training of teachers in the State of New 
York for the year 1921 appear in Table 25. 

Teachers’ Salaries 

As noted in the Introduction, because of the extensive work of the com¬ 
mittees of the National Education Association, the Educational Finance 
Inquiry Commission did not feel justified in expending its time or resources 
on an independent study of teachers’ salaries. But since teachers’ salaries 
constitute approximately seventy-five per cent of current expense for 
schools in the larger communities, and even more in the smaller ones, and 
since there had been throughout the state so much public discussion of 
the teacher salary increases under laws going into effect in 1920 and 1921, 

i Higher education in the State of New York is provided primarily from private sources and the state 
is not comparable in its provision for higher education to many of the other states of the Union. 


74 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


the subject could not be ignored. Accordingly, it seemed advisable to 
give a brief digest of the present law on teachers’ salaries and a summary 
of the salaries actually paid. 

TABLE 25 

COST OF TEACHER TRAINING IN TAX-SUPPORTED INSTITUTIONS 

STATE OF NEW YORK, 1921 

Current Expenses of Teacher Training 


Institution 

Total Current Expenses 

New York State College for Teachers 1 . 

$ 194,566 

College of the City of New York 2 . 

362,102 3 

Hunter College 2 . 

199,670 4 

488 University Scholarships . 

48,800 

State Normal Schools (two-year course) 1 . 

1,081,197 

Training Schools (two-year course). 

383,001 5 

Training Classes (one-year course). 

54,236 5 

TOTAL . 

$2,323,572 

Total Cost of Education- (state and local) . 

Percentage of total state and local expenses of education spent 

$175,480,003 

on teacher training. 

1.3 


1 Supported entirely by the state. 

2 Supported by the City of New York. 

3 Calculated as follows: Total salaries, $501,717. In the preceding year salaries made up 68.5 per cent 
of total current expenses. On that basis total current expenses were $732,434. Total graduates, 267. 
Graduates prepared for teaching, 132. £§? X $732,434 equals $362,102. It is assumed that the number 
of undergraduates preparing for teaching is to the total number of undergraduates, as the number of gradu¬ 
ates prepared for teaching is to the total number of graduates. 

4 The total salary cost was $422,888. In the preceding year salaries made up 82.8 per cent of total current 
expenses. On that basis total current expenses were $510,734. There w r ere in all 243 graduates. Of 
these 95 were prepared to teach as recognized by eligibility to the College Graduate Professional Provisional 
Certificate. The figure given is 5 9 ^j of the total current expenses. 

6 Salaries of teachers only. 

The law lays down minimum salary schedules for the different types of 
communities and for various kinds of positions in each community. These 
schedules as a rule prescribe for each type of position a minimum initial 
salary, a minimum annual increment for satisfactory service, and a mini¬ 
mum number of annual increments. Naturally all these items are numeri¬ 
cally larger as the communities increase in size. Each community then 
proceeds through its school board to make its salary schedule conform to 
the minimum requirements for a community of its class. Table 25A gives 
a convenient digest of the minimum requirements for all classes of posi¬ 
tions in all kinds of communities. 

To give an accurate picture of the teachers’ salaries actually paid is 
a difficult matter. Such salaries depend upon the extent to which the 
various communities exceed the state minimum requirements and upon 
the proportion of inexperienced teachers employed. When the Head¬ 
quarters Staff sought data on present teachers’ salaries in the state, the 




















CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 75 


TABLE 25A 

DIGEST OF TEACHERS’ MINIMUM SALARY LAW — STATE OF 

NEW YORK 

According to Education Law, Revised to July 1, 1923 (Article 33-b) 



Minimum 

Initial 

Salary 

Minimum 

Annual 

Increment 

Minimum 
Number of 
Annual 
Increments 

Minimum 
Salary after 
Securing 
Minimum 
Number of 
Annual 
Increments 

I. City of New York 





Elementary Schools 





Kindergarten to Six-B 





Classes . 

$1500 

$125 

11 

$2875 

Seven-A to Nine-B Classes 

1900 

150 

9 

3250 

Teachers of Special Sub- 





jects . 

1900 

150 

9 

3250 

Assistants to Principals 





(Heads of Departments) 

3400 

100 

2 

3600 

Principals of Elementary 





and All Special Schools . 

3750 

250 

4 

4750 

Teacher Clerks .... 

1200 

100 

6 

1800 

High Schools and Training 





Schools 





Assistant Teachers . . . 

1900 

150 

12 

3700 

First Assistants .... 

3200 

200 

5 

4200 

Clerical, Laboratory, Li- 





brary, etc. ..... 

1400 

100 

10 

2400 

Principals. 

5500 

250 

2 

6000 

Colleges 





Fellows. 

500 

i 

i 

1000 5 

Tutors. 

1000 



2000 5 

Clerical, Laboratory, Li- 





brary, etc. 

1400 



2400 5 

Instructors. 

2000 



3500 5 

Assistant Professors. . . 

3000 



4500 5 

Associate Professors . . 

4500 



5500 5 

Lecturers. 

2000 



5000 5 

Curator and Auditor . . 

4000 



6000 5 

Professors . 

5000 



8000 5 

Dean, Librarian, Secretary 





of Faculty. 

200 2 



500 2 - 5 

President. 

10,000 



12,500 5 

II. Cities of First Class —Population 





Less than Million 





Elementary Schools 





Kindergarten to Eighth 





Grade . 

3 

100 4 

8 


Junior High Schools 

1600 

100 4 

8 

2400 

High Schools. 

3 

100 4 

8 



1 Information on Minimum Annual Increment and Minimum Number of Annual Increments not given 
in State Education Law. 2 This is in addition to the salaries of their regular rank. 

3 Four hundred dollars in advance of salary set by local school board on March 1, 1920. 

4 Annual increment not less than $100, nor less than one-eighth of the difference between the minimum 
and maximum compensation. 

These figures are for maximum salaries. They are the only ones available. 




























76 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

TABLE 25A ( Continued) 

DIGEST OF TEACHERS’ MINIMUM SALARY LAW —STATE OF 

NEW YORK 

According to Education Law, Revised to July 1, 1923 (Article 33-b) 



Minimum 

Initial 

Salary 

Minimum 

Annual 

Increment 

Minimum 
Number of 
Annual 
Increments 

Minimum 
Salary after 
Securing 
Minimum 
Number of 
Annual 
Increments 

III. Cities of Population of Fifty 
Thousand and Less than One 
Hundred Fifty Thousand 
Elementary Schools 

Kindergarten to Eighth 
Grade. 

$1100 

$75 

8 

$1700 

High Schools. 

1300 

75 

8 

1900 

IV. Cities of Population Less than 
Fifty Thousand 

Elementary Schools 

Kindergarten to Eighth 
Grade . 

1000 

75 

8 

1600 

High Schools. 

1150 

75 

8 

1750 

V. Union Free Schools 

Elementary Schools 

Kindergarten to Eighth 
Grade . 

800 

75 

8 

1400 

High Schools. 

900 

75 

8 

1500 

VI. Rural and All Other Districts 

720 1 





1 Education Law, Sec. 491-A, Sub. Sec. 3. 


State Education Department was found to have copies of schedules ac¬ 
tually in operation and a record of the salary paid each teacher in the public 
schools of the state. But the Department had not found it possible to work 
up summaries to show how the schedules in general exceeded the state 
minimum requirements, or how many teachers received any given salary. 
In this situation where the data in these two particulars could not have 
been secured save with very great labor and expense, all that could be done 
was to utilize the most recent data published by the National Education 
Association. These data do not include all the teachers of any class in 
New York or in other states. But they do include sufficient cases to give 
a fair sampling, as a careful perusal of the details in the Association’s report 
will show. The results from all the teachers would probably not have 
been materially different from the results obtained. Unfortunately the 
data on New York are classified by the usual census size groupings, which 
do not at all fit the New York State legal classifications of cities and vil¬ 
lages. The data are for the year 1922-1923, but, as most of the schedules 
went into full operation in 1920 and 1921, the figures probably represent 
the present situation accurately. 






















CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 77 

Table 25B gives a summary of the salaries actually paid in 1922-1923 
to the village and city teachers of the state, by bringing together figures 
for the median (middle-case) salaries for various positions in communities 
of different sizes from 2500 to over 100,000 population. All the figures 
are taken directly from Tables 57 to 61 of “Teachers’ Salaries and Salary 
Trends in 1923,” the report of the Salary Committee of the National Educa¬ 
tion Association, published by the Association in July of 1923. This bulletin 
in addition has complete distribution tables (Numbers 62-64), showing 
respectively how many salaries of each size were paid in the districts re¬ 
porting for elementary teachers, high school teachers, and supervising ele¬ 
mentary school principals, irrespective of the kind of district they were in. 

TABLE 25B 

MEDIAN (MIDDLE-CASE) SALARIES ACTUALLY PAID THE PUBLIC 
SCHOOL TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS IN CITIES AND VILLAGES 

STATE OF NEW YORK, 1922-1923 1 


(The * before an item indicates that this salary is below the corresponding 
median salary for the United States as a whole.) 



In Cities and Villages with 

a Population 

OF 

2500 

to 

5000 

5000 

to 

10,000 

10,000 

to 

30,000 

30,000 

to 

100,000 

Over 

100,000 

Kindergarten Teachers . . 

*$1150 

$1333 

*$1313 

$1559 

$2187 

Elementary Teachers 

1259 

1354 

1344 

1551 

2584 

Junior High School 






Teachers. 

1416 

1621 

1442 

*1550 

3236 

Senior High School 






Teachers. 

1522 

1645 

*1628 

*1880 

3517 

Special Class Teachers . . 

*1550 

*1266 

*1525 

*1617 

2631 

School Nurses. 

1500 

1600 

*1400 

*1367 

*1414 

Elementary Principals, All 

1583 

*1492 




Elementary Principals 






Supervising. 

2525 

2100 

*1940 

2388 

4638 

Elementary Principals 






Non-supervising . . . 



1723 

2450 

3619 

Junior High School 






Principals. 

1950 

2000 



4633 

Senior High School 






Principals. 

2100 

*2400 

*2950 

4100 

6500 


i Adapted from Tables 57-61 of “Teachers’ Salaries and Salary Trends in 1923,” Report of the Salary 
Committee of the National Education Association, July, 1923. 


Table 25C gives the median salaries actually paid different kinds of rural 
teachers and principals in 1922-1923 in the state, with similar figures for 
easy comparison with the states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New 






















78 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


Jersey. These figures are from Table 65 of the National Education As¬ 
sociation’s bulletin referred to above. 

TABLE 25C 

MEDIAN (MIDDLE-CASE) SALARIES OF RURAL PUBLIC SCHOOL 
TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS — STATES OF CONNECTICUT, MAS¬ 
SACHUSETTS, NEW JERSEY, AND NEW YORK, 1922-1923 1 

(The number of *’s before any New York salary item indicates the times such 
salary is exceeded by the corresponding figures for the three other states.) 


• 

Teachers in 

Principals in 

One- 

Teacher 

Schools 

Two- 

Teacher 

Schools 

Three or 
More 
Teacher 
Schools 
in Open 
Country 

Consoli¬ 

dated 

Schools 

Three or 
More 
Teacher 
Schools in 
Villages 
and 
Towns 

Elemen¬ 

tary 

Schools 

Only 

Organized 

High 

Schools 

Only 

Schools 

Having 

Both 

Elementary 
and High 
School 
Pupils 

Connecticut . 

$1008 

$1088 

$1067 

$1719 

$1254 

$2250 

$2463 

$1800 

Massachusetts 

887 

1046 

1063 

1248 

1122 

1300 

1757 

1650 

New Jersey . 

1037 

1165 

1231 

1215 

1414 

1819 

2550 

2001 

New York 

*** 870 

***1018 

1320 

*1271 

**1218 

**1443 

***1510 

**1767 


1 Adapted from Table 65 of “Teachers’ Salaries and Salary Trends in 1923,” Report of the Salary 
Committee of the National Education Association, July, 1923. 


All of the tables of the National Education Association data cited give 
figures for the states individually and for the country as a whole. From 
these it is possible for the interested reader to gain a clear idea as to how 
salaries for teachers in the State of New York compare with those in other 
states. It might be expected at first thought that teachers’ salaries in a 
wealthy state like New York would naturally exceed those for the country 
as a whole, which include the poorer states. But as the starred figures of 
Table 25B indicate, New York in a surprising number of instances does 
not have a median salary equal to the median salary for the country as 
a whole. The complete distribution tables show that median salaries 
for both elementary and high school teachers in the state outside of the 
City of New York are distinctly below the salaries for such positions in 
the United States as a whole. The median salaries for rural teachers for 
the country as a whole would be meaningless because the remainder of 
the country is in general much more rural than is the State of New York. 
But when states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are 
taken, states with which it would seem perfectly fair to compare New York, 
substantially the same lower figures for New York are found. As shown 
in Table 25C, there is only one kind of rural teaching position in the state 
in which the teachers’ median salary is not exceeded by the median salary 
for such work in at least one of the other three states. 

























CURRENT EXPENSES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION ANALYZED 79 


The situation in a nutshell is this : While the salaries for certain kinds of 
positions in certain types of communities and for the larger cities are on 
the whole above typical salaries for such work in the entire country, 
teachers’ salaries at present in the state are in general distinctly below what 
might be expected of the State of New York’s resources. The available 
facts indicate that the public school teachers outside of the largest cities 
are not so well paid as they are in a number of other states with which New 
York would naturally be compared. 



CHAPTER V 


PLANT COSTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 

In Chapter III (pages 31-36) aggregate figures for the plant costs 
of the tax-supported school system are given in two forms as cash 
payments and as accrued economic charge. The present chapter re¬ 
cords the data which underlie those aggregates, explains the methods of 
computation, and draws attention to certain important deductions which 
flow from the figures when studied in detail. 

Plant costs are often neglected in studies of educational finance. 
Students are apt to restrict their field of study to current expenses, ignor¬ 
ing the costs of plant and permanent equipment. This is done apparently 
on the theory that such costs are insignificant in amount, that they are 
abnormal in the sense that they recur infrequently, and that any depre¬ 
ciation in buildings is offset by appreciation in the value of school sites. 
As a matter of fact, however, these costs are substantial in amount and, 
except in small districts, tend to be constant rather than sporadic. The 
data indicate that in the City of New York, at least, there is no foundation 
for the belief that the appreciation in land values is substantial enough to 
offset depreciation in structures. In determining the charge to the com¬ 
munity, moreover, an appreciation of the value of a school site is not 
pertinent if an equal or higher price must be paid for a substituted site 
yielding the same service. Furthermore, it may be strongly argued that 
a valuable school site is more often than not a liability. A part of the 
capital cost is the ground rent (imputed economic cost). When a school 
building is occupying a valuable site, it is using a portion of the com¬ 
munity assets which, if in private hands, would contribute to the 
popular income, and it is often thus depriving the city of large sums 
in taxes. 

The varying practice with respect to insurance is a disturbing factor in 
the problem of separating current expenses from plant costs. In those 
cases in which school buildings have been insured, the premiums have 
been charged to current expenses, but in the larger cities the common 
practice has been not to insure the buildings. In all cases it has been the 
practice to charge to capital outlay the entire cost of reconstruction of a 

building destroyed by fire whether insured or not. 

80 


PLANT COSTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 


81 


Plant Costs — Cash Disbursements 

As has been explained in Chapter III (page 38) the figures presented 
under the heading “ Cash Disbursements ” represent the bookkeeping 
facts of money actually paid out of the public treasury for the various 
items. No detailed explanation of their character is necessary, other than 
that given in the earlier chapter, but it is desirable to present them in 
somewhat greater detail at this place. Table 26 classifies cash disburse¬ 
ments so as to exhibit capital outlays for common schools (including high 
schools), normal schools, and colleges, and for general state administration. 
The outlay under the last of these three headings represents the capital 
cost of the elaborate building occupied by the State Department of Edu¬ 
cation in Albany. 


TABLE 26 

PUBLIC EDUCATION —CASH DISBURSEMENTS FOR CAPITAL OUTLAY, 

1910-1922 

Classified by Common Schools (Including High Schools), Normal Schools 

and Colleges, and General Administration 1 

For Years Ending July 31 


State and Local—State of New York 


Year 

Common Schools 
(Including High 
Schools) 

Normal Schools 
and Colleges 

General State 
Administration 

Total 

1910 

S 7,130,568 

$ 112,341 

$ 680,243 

S 7,923,152 

1911 

7,425,306 

176,316 

960,797 

8,562,419 

1912 

8,336,479 

342,230 

1,083,450 

9,762,159 

1913 

9,161,009 

588,117 

989,652 

10,738,778 

1914 

11,922,121 

548,945 

139,566 

12,610,632 

1915 

11,818,598 

338,688 

87,515 

12,244,801 

1916 2 

6,818,345 

279,856 

19,213 

7,117,414 

1917 

7,601,691 

259,741 

10,815 

7,872,247 

1918 

7,564,886 

387,455 

4,390 

7,956,731 

1919 

8,064,969 

264,305 

7,867 

8,337,141 

1920 

9,694,554 

298,467 

3,641 

9,996,662 

1921 

20,652,914 

129,544 

3,680 

20,786,138 

1922 

29,432,748 

597,201 

3,934 

30,033,883 


City of New York Only 


1910 

$ 4,171,189 



$ 4,171,189 

1915 

6,598,465 

$55,989 


6,654,454 

1920 

2,863,398 



2,863,398 

1921 

9,559,011 



9,559,011 

13,857,989 

1922 

13,857,989 




1 See notes to Table 2, p. 33. 

2 The state’s fiscal year was changed at this time, so that certain of the state expenses were for a nine- 
month rather than a twelve-month period. 
























82 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


The cash disbursements for interest payments set forth in Table 2, on 
page 33, are credited in the accounts entirely to common schools (including 
high schools). The total of $30,033,883 represents, then, the amount ac¬ 
tually invested in new school sites, plant, and equipment in the single year 
1922. In view of the inadequacy of the physical equipment at present 
available (see page 91), it is probable that the community must expect to 
provide as much or more each year for some time to come. 

Plant Costs — Annual Accrued Economic Cost 

Aggregate figures are presented in Chapter III (see page 35) repre¬ 
senting the annual depreciation of school plant and equipment, and the 
annual interest value of the capital tied up in school property. As these 
figures are estimates rather than true bookkeeping figures, it is necessary 
to explain the manner in which they are calculated. 

The first step necessary in figuring the yearly depreciation of school 
buildings is the determination of a fair figure to represent the life of school 
buildings. Once this figure has been chosen, the assumption that the 
corresponding fraction of the original cost is lost each year on the average 
would be justified. 

In the light of competent advice, it is assumed that the depreciation of 
school buildings throughout the state should be figured on the basis of an 
estimated life of 75 years. 1 On this assumption a school building loses 
or 1-J- per cent, of its original cost value each year. Since available 
figures on the valuation of school buildings in the State of New York 
are in terms of “ present values,” rather than original cost figures, 
it becomes necessary so to relate the present value of many buildings of 
widely-varying ages to their original costs, that a percentage of depre¬ 
ciation in terms of present value may be determined. A building fifty 
years old has already lost yf or f of its original value, and its present 
value is, then, the remaining of its original value. During the coming 
year it will lose another y 1 ^ of its original value, or — what is the same 
thing — of the present value as entered on the school records. 

To determine a figure for the percentage of depreciation in the present 

1 The first method of attacking this problem was to secure the opinion of as many specialists in the field 
of educational administration as was possible. The estimates of these men as to the life of school buildings 
ranged from 50 to 100 years with the central tendency strongly marked at 70 to 75 years. In the absence 
of definite statistical facts establishing the average life of school buildings, the opinion of these specialists 
has been considered of great importance in arriving at the best possible figure. 

The other method was to place before an accepted real estate authority complete facts with regard to 
the ages and types of construction of the school buildings in the State of New York and to secure from him 
an estimate as to the probable life of each type of building. The person invited to act in this capacity was 
Mr. Frank Lord, of the Cross and Brown Company, who, through long experience in this field, has estab¬ 
lished an enviable reputation as a competent judge of the value, length of life, and rate of depreciation of 
buildings. With all the available facts concerning the school buildings of the state before him, Mr. Lord 
reached the conclusion that the best figures to express the length of life of school buildings in the State of 
New York would vary from 50 to 75 years with the location of buildings and type of construction. He 
ratified the use of 75 years as a single figure for the life of school buildings. 


PLANT COSTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 


83 


<N 


P3 

< 

H 


<N 

<N 

05 




cr 

oo 


W 

X 

o 

>* 

w 

5? 

o 

!* 

H 

HH 

O 


co 

O 

£ 

HH 

Q 

H 

»—i 
& 
CQ 

H 

O 

o 

X 

o 

co 

o 

w 

o 


« . J 



Unde 

Con- 

STRUC 

TION 

>0 H H 

tr 

rH (M 

<N O <N 

CO Tf( rH 

rH 

a -p a 

rH rH 

rH 


co o 



h o 

05 -p Oi 

CO H lO 

05 

rH t-H 



t-H LQ 

t-H O T-H 

(ooo^n 

(N 

05 -fH ai 

tH t-H 

H N r( 

LO 

CO o 

O o rH 

N CO O N 

rH 

05 -P 05 

rH rH 

t-H (N rH 

lO 

t-H lO 

O o o 

N a rH N CO 

o 

05 -h> 05 

rH rH 

rH <N 

CD 

CO o 

05 O o 

ic CO CO N 

00 

OO H 05 

t-H rH 

(N H H M 

00 

rH lO 

05 O 05 

N TtuO O O) 

lO 

CO -H CO 

H rH 

rH rH CsJ 

CO 

co o 

GO o 05 

NCOO^CC 

05 

00 Hi 00 

rH rH 

rH 

CO 

rH lO 

00 o oo 

05 rH (M (M 

oo 

00 00 

rH t-H 

rH 

CN 

CD O 

N O CO 

05 N »0 H 


00 00 

rH rH 



rH *-Q 

N O N 

CONOCJH 

<N 

00 ^ 00 

t-H t-H 

rH 

M 

CO o 

CO ON 

05 t-H CO rH 


00 H 00 

rH rH 

rH 

(M 

rH lQ 

CD O O 

00 ^ 00 

Tt< T* rH 

05 

rH rH 



CO o 

>0 o CO 

O (M 05 rH 

(N 

00 H 00 

rH rH 

t-H 

<N 

rH lO 

lO 

00 oo 

4 

2 

CO 

t-H t-H 



CO o 

Tf O *0 

00 -r> 00 

rH 

1C 

t-H rH 



rH lO 

TfH O 

00 hh 00 

N t-H 

00 

rH rH 



co o 

CO o ^ 

00 +H 00 

rH rH 

M 

rH rH 



rH lO 

CO O M 

00 -H 1 00 

t-H 

rH 

rH rH 



CO O 

(MOM 

00 +-> 00 



t-H t-H 



rH lO 

non 

oo +h oo 

t-H t-H 

<N 

rH rH 



co o 



T-H 0 OJ 

GO -H) 00 



rH rH 



rH lO 

rH O rH 

00 ^ oo 



rH rH 



CD O 



O O -H 

00 HP 00 

t-H 

H 

rH t-H 



o *o 

O O o 

00 pp GO 



rH rH 



r3 



< 

IOND5HN 

rt< 

Eh 

rj( CO 00 O CO 

CO 

O 

rH rH rH 

LO 

H 







P . rH 

c3 * * U 

P 

O 


g i? « © 
js * ^ o S 

H 


fl fl O $X 

a 


§ 2 2 § .2 

P 

(r 


^WpqQ’M 

o 




































































































84 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


value of the school buildings of a city or state, one must have a single figure 
to represent the ages of all the buildings in that particular unit. Such a 
figure was secured for the school buildings of the cities of the State of New 
York, and another for the rural school buildings, as follows : 

The dates of construction of all school buildings being known, these 
buildings were divided into four quarters on the basis of their ages. For 
instance, in the City of New York, the oldest quarter of the total number 
of school buildings was constructed between 1800 and 1883. (See Table 
27.) The date of erection of the middle building in the group was then 
determined, and its age was used to represent the ages of all the buildings 
constituting this oldest quarter of New York City’s school buildings. The 
date of erection of this middle-case building was 1868. Its age in 1921 
was, therefore, 53 years, and the assumption was made that one-fourth of 
the school buildings of the City of New York were 53 years old. 


TABLE 28 

SCHOOL BUILDINGS — CITY OF NEW YORK — DATE OF CONSTRUC¬ 
TION, AND AGE IN 1921, OF CERTAIN TYPICAL BUILDINGS 


Age Group 

Construction 

Period 

Construction 
Date of Middle- 
Case Building 

Age 

IN 

1921 

Oldest quarter. 

1800-1883 

1868 

53 

Next oldest quarter. 

1883-1897 

1892 

29 

Third oldest quarter. 

1897-1906 

1900 

21 

Newest quarter . 

1906-1921 

1912 

9 


In like manner, as shown in Table 28, the age of the next oldest quarter 
of New York City’s buildings was assumed to be 29 years in 1921. Of the 
two most recent quarters the ages were determined as 21 and 9 years 
respectively. Each of these four ages represents the same number of 
buildings — one-fourth of all the school buildings in the City of New York, 
and it therefore seems valid to use the average of these four ages as the 
one figure best representing the age of school buildings in the City of 
New York. 

This figure for 1921 is 28 years (53 plus 29 plus 21 plus 9 divided by 4 
equals 28). It may then be assumed that the present value of these school 
buildings is minus f-f, or 62f per cent of their original value. In 1922 
each of these buildings would be one year older and would therefore have 
lost another 1^ per cent of its original value. The present value of these 
same buildings in 1922 would average 1^ per cent less, or only 61| per cent 
of the original value. This depreciation in one year of 1-J per cent of origi¬ 
nal value is therefore equivalent to 1^- divided by 62f, or 2.1 per cent of 
the present value in 1921. 

















PLANT COSTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 


85 


Similar treatment of the ages of school buildings in the City of New 
York in 1910 showed that the present value of these buildings depreciated 
1.8 per cent between 1910 and 1911. This computation is followed through 
in Table 29. 


TABLE 29 


SCHOOL BUILDINGS — CITY OF NEW YORK — DATE OF CONSTRUC¬ 
TION, AND AGE IN 1910, OF CERTAIN TYPICAL BUILDINGS 


Age Group 

Construction 

Period 

Construction 
Date of Middle- 
Case Building 

Age 

IN 

1910 

Oldest quarter. 

1800-1879 

1866 

44 

Next oldest quarter. 

1879-1894 

1889 

21 

Third oldest quarter. 

1894-1901 

1898 

12 

Newest quarter . 

1901-1910 

1905 

5 


Calculation : Average age in 1910 (44 plus 21 plus 12 plus 5 divided by 4) equals 20| years. 

, 75 . 20£ , 54£ 

Present value 1910 equals — minus 


75 


equals equals 72§ per cent of original value. 


Average age in 1911, 21^ years. 

Present value in 1911 equals 71j per cent of original value. 

Depreciation in present value, 1910 to 1911, equals 1| divided by 72§ equals 1.8 per cent. 


The rate of depreciation having been figured as 1.8 per cent in 1910 and 
2.1 per cent in 1921, it seems fair to assume that the best figure to represent 
the annual depreciation in the present values of New York City’s school 
buildings during the past twelve years is 2.0 per cent. 

Having the dates of construction of any group of school buildings it is 
possible to determine the rate of depreciation in present values by the 
method outlined above. This has resulted in accepting 2 per cent as the 
best figure to use in determining the depreciation of the school buildings 
in the cities of the State of New York, and 3 per cent as the best figure 
to use in connection with the rural school buildings. 


TABLE 30 

RURAL SCHOOL BUILDINGS — STATE OF NEW YORK — DISTRIBUTION 
OF ONE- TO FOUR-TEACHER SCHOOL BUILDINGS BY DATE 

OF CONSTRUCTION 1 


Date of Con¬ 
struction 

1840 

or 

before 

1841 

to 

1850 

1851 

to 

1860 

1861 

to 

1870 

1871 

to 

1880 

1881 

to 

1890 

1891 

to 

1900 

1901 

to 

1910 

1911 

to 

1920 

Number of 
Buildings 

130 

133 

166 

218 

225 

154 

81 

84 

72 


Total Number of Buildings . . . 


1 This table is a combination of Tables 61, 62, and 63 in the volume Buildings and Grounds of the “ Rural 
School Survey of New York State ” by the Joint Committee on Rural Schools, Ithaca, New York, 1922. 
























































86 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


Table 30 presents the basic facts as to the dates of construction of the 
rural school buildings of the State of New York. From the facts of this 
table Tables 31 and 32 are derived. In Table 31 it is shown that in 1920 
the four age groups of these rural buildings are respectively 77, 57, 43, and 
19 years old. 

TABLE 31 


ONE- TO FOUR-TEACHER RURAL SCHOOL BUILDINGS — STATE OF 
NEW YORK —DATE OF CONSTRUCTION, AND AGE IN 1920, 

OF CERTAIN TYPICAL BUILDINGS 


Group 

Construction 

Period 

Construction 
Date of Middle- 
Case Building 

Age 

IN 

1920 

Oldest quarter. 

Before 1854 

1843 

77 

Next oldest quarter . 

1854-1870 

1863 

57 

Third oldest quarter. 

1870-1886 

1877 

43 

Newest quarter. 

1886-1920 

1901 

19 


In computing the average age of any group of buildings it is inconsistent 
to assign to any subgroup an age greater than 75 years. To do so would 
require the assigning of a negative value to this subgroup. The oldest 
quarter of these rural buildings is therefore called 75 years old in both 
1920 and in 1921. The one figure best representing the age of rural school 
buildings in 1920 is therefore (75 plus 57 plus 43 plus 19) divided by 4 or 
48-J years. The present value of these buildings in 1920 would therefore 
75 . 48^- 

be minus or 35^- per cent of the original value. In 1921 the 

average age of these same buildings would be (75 plus 58 plus 44 plus 20) 
divided by 4, or 49^ years. The present value of the buildings in 1921 is 
253. 

therefore or 34^- per cent of their original value. The depreciation 

of these buildings from 1920 to 1921 in terms of present value is therefore 
(35^ minus 34-J) divided by 35^, or 2.8 per cent. 

Table 32 presents corresponding facts for this group of rural buildings 
in 1910. 

TABLE 32 

ONE- TO FOUR-TEACHER RURAL SCHOOL BUILDINGS — STATE OF 
NEW YORK —DATE OF CONSTRUCTION, AND AGE IN 1910, 

OF CERTAIN TYPICAL BUILDINGS 


Group 

Construction 

Period 

Construction 
Date of Middle- 
Case Building 

Age 

in 

1910 

Oldest quarter. 

Before 1853 

1842 

68 

Next oldest quarter . 

1853-1869 

1862 

48 

Third oldest quarter. 

1869-1882 

1875 

35 

Newest quarter. 

1882-1910 

1893 

17 



































87 


PLANT COSTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 

In this table the four quarters of the entire group are shown to have 
been 68, 48, 35, and 17 years old in 1910. The average age of the group 
was therefore 42 years and their present value was 44 per cent of their 
original cost. In 1911 the average age of this same group was 43 years 
and the present value 42| per cent of the original value. The present value 
theiefore depreciated from 1910 to 1911 1£ divided by 44, or 3.0 per cent. 

From this determination of a depreciation of 3.0 per cent at the begin¬ 
ning and 2.8 per cent at the end of the twelve-year period 3 per cent has 
been considered the best figure to use in connection with the annual de¬ 
preciation in present value of rural school buildings. 

Imputed Interest — How Calculated. — The value of the school build¬ 
ings, sites, and equipment in the first-, second-, and third-class cities, in 
towns and villages, and in all other school districts for each of the twelve 
^ ears, 1910—1921 inclusive, was secured from the State Department of 
Education. To compute an interest charge on the capital thus tied up, it 
was necessary to secure some figure as to the value of money in each of 
these groups each year. The income basis of long-term bonds issued for 
school purposes was decided upon as the best figure to represent this value. 

Simply to find the income basis of each bond issue in a given year and to 
find the average of these rates would not allow for a weighting of this rate 
in proportion to the amounts of the issues. To illustrate: An issue of 
$10,000 at 6 per cent and an issue of $100,000 at 4-g- per cent income 
basis gives an average rate of 5.25 per cent. It is clear that this method 
attaches as much weight to the $10,000 as to the $100,000 issue. The 
method used in this investigation was to find the amount of interest 
earned in one year by the capital invested in each bond issue and to divide 
the sum of these amounts of interest by the total sum of the amounts of 
the issues, thus securing a single rate to represent the value of school money 
in that particular year. To illustrate, using the example above : $10,000 
sold at an income basis of 6 per cent would yield $600 of interest yearly. 
One hundred thousand dollars at 4J per cent would yield $4,500. The total 
of $110,000 therefore would earn in one year $5,100. This amounts to an 
income basis of $5,100 divided by $110,000, or 4.64 per cent for that year. 

The source of facts concerning school bond issues during these twelve 
years was “ Municipal Bond Sales,” published each year as a supplement 
to “ The Bond Buyer.” This book tabulates complete data concerning 
each municipal bond sold in a given year, giving the facts concerning 
amount of issue, purpose for which issued, the rate, the selling price, and 
the income basis. From this source the amount of each issue for school 
purposes, and the income basis of that issue for each year, was tabulated. 
The tabulations were made separately for the following groups of com¬ 
munities in the State of New York : first-class cities ; second-class cities ; 
third-class cities; towns and villages ; and all other school districts. 


88 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


Throughout the tabulation, the City of New York was recorded sepa¬ 
rately from the other first-class cities, making it possible to compute the 
rate for first-class cities, all cities of the state, or for the entire state, with the 
City of New York included, and with it excluded. The amount of issue 
and the income basis being tabulated in two columns for each group, it 
was possible by computation to secure the third column, the yearly interest 
on each issue. Then, as explained above, the column giving the amount 
of issues and the column with the yearly interest, were summed and the 
division made resulted in a single figure as the income basis of long term 
issues for school purposes in each of these groups. Combinations of these 
totals made it possible to compute the corresponding figure for any desired 
combination of school communities in the state. 

Each school district of the state reports to the State Department at 
Albany each year the present value of its school buildings, sites, library, 
apparatus, furniture, and all other school property. In the case of the 
City of New York, the reports on buildings and sites have not been made 
on the basis of present value, as was asked by the State Department, but 
on the basis of the total accumulated cost. Before applying this com¬ 
puted rate to the figures reported by the City of New York it was necessary 
to substitute present values for the accumulated cost figures. 

As a basis for this correction the assessed values of school buildings and 
sites in the City of New York were used. It is claimed by the Department 
of Taxes and Assessments that these non-taxable properties are assessed 
just as carefully and accurately as are other properties in the city. As a 
result of this investigation it was determined that the 1922 value of school 
buildings in the city was 76.4 per cent of the accumulated cost of these 
buildings and that the present value of sites is 104.5 per cent of their orig¬ 
inal cost. The State Department figures for the City of New York were 
corrected on this basis. From that point, it was simply a matter of apply¬ 
ing the computed interest rate, for a given group of school districts, to 
the present value of the school plants in that group, in a given year, thus 
securing the imputed interest, which would be a proper charge against the 
communities of the state, as the result of having that amount of capital 
invested in school plants. 

In working out the totals for the state, the original small groups were 
combined into three : cities exclusive of New York City ; the City of New 
York; and towns and villages. The total for these three groups gave the 
figure for the whole state. These groups were chosen, because the state 
reports give values of sites, buildings, and the like, by these subdivisions. 

The interest rates resulting from the computation just described are 
set forth in Table 33. 

Appreciation in Value of School Sites. — The only reliable data relating 
to changes in the value of school sites are not for the entire state, but only 


PLANT COSTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 89 

for the City of New York, and cover a much longer period than the twelve 
years here under review. These data, however, are exceedingly interesting 
in that they run counter to the general impression regarding the size of 
the increase of land values. Thus, it has often been assumed in discus¬ 
sions of this problem, that the increase in the value of school sites in general 
is substantial enough to offset roughly the depreciation in the value of 
school buildings, so rendering it unnecessary to consider such depreciation 
as a cost. The facts appear to indicate that this assumption is not justified. 

TABLE 33 


COMPUTED INTEREST RATES ON ISSUES OF LONG-TERM SCHOOL 
BONDS —STATE OF NEW YORK, 1910-1921 


Year 

Cities Exclusive of 
City of New York 

City of New York 

Towns and 
Villages 

Total 

1910 

4.16% 

4.00% 

4.43% 

4.10% 

1911 

4.13 

4.00 

4.41 

4.04 

1912 

4.18 

4.25 

4.45 

4.26 

1913 

4.52 

4.00 

4.76 

4.25 

1914 

4.30 

4.25 

4.71 

4.34 

1915 

4.22 

4.50 

4.64 

4.36 

1916 

4.01 

4.25 

4.25 

4.20 

1917 

4.27 

4.50 

4.54 

4.47 

1918 

4.50 

4.50 

5.05 

4.59 

1919 

4.38 

4.25 1 

4.62 

4.34 

1920 

5.03 

4.25 1 

5.36 

4.67 

1921 

Total 

4.53 

4.25 

5.30 

4.55 

1910-1921 

4.45 

4.20 

4.91 

4.38 


1 The school money borrowed by the City of New York in 1919 and 1920 was financed by short-term 
notes bearing interest at the rate of 6 per cent and upward. In 1921 these notes were funded into long¬ 
term bonds bearing per cent interest. This rate was adopted in the computation as the City of New 
York figure for the three years 1919, 1920, and 1921. The rate on long-term school bonds, floated by 
school districts outside the City of New York in 1919, was 4.46 per cent and in 1920 was 5.14 per cent. 
For the entire twelve-year period, the rate outside the City was higher than the rate in the City of New York 
by 3 P 0 8 3 of 1 per cent. 


The present value of the school sites (exclusive of buildings) in the City 
of New York is $38,435,308. The original cost of these sites, some of 
which were purchased many years ago, was $36,794,010. The increase in 
value, therefore, amounts to only $1,641,298, or 4.5 per cent. 

The figures regarding original cost are taken from the records of the 
Board of Education of the City of New York. The individual sites were 
identified on the records of the Department of Taxes and Assessments, 
and the present assessed values were taken. The assessment of land values 
in the City of New York is performed with a high degree of accuracy, and 
the valuations are generally conceded to approximate closely the full market 
value of the land. The State Tax Commission, basing its ratings upon 
















90 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


extensive comparisons with values stated in deeds in cases of recorded 
sales, assigns, for 1921, the following percentage to the various boroughs 
of the city, as an indication of its judgment concerning the probable per 
cent which assessed values were of true values in those boroughs. 

Percentage 


Manhattan. 95 

Bronx. 93 

Brooklyn . 95 

Queens. 93 

Richmond. 93 


Those familiar with real estate conditions testify that these percentages 
are too low rather than too high. The assessors arrive at the value of the 
school sites by the use of the same technique of unit foot-front values as that 
used in assessing other land. They insist that the values assigned to school 
sites are fully as precise and reliable as those assigned to land in general. 

A comparison of the original cost of school sites with present values, by 
boroughs, yields the following results : 



Original Cost 

Present Value 

Increase or 
Decrease 

Manhattan. 

Bronx .. 

Brooklyn. 

Queens. 

Richmond. 

Total. 

$23,082,230 

4,113,567 

7,719,913 

1,504,049 

374,251 

$36,794,010 

$24,017,700 

4,395,300 

7,389,350 

2,275,258 

357,700 

$38,435,308 

+ $935,470 
+ 281,733 

- 330,563 

+ 771,209 

16,551 

+$1,641,298 


The surprisingly small increase in the value of school sites, taking the 
city as a whole, together with the actual declines shown in the boroughs of 
Brooklyn and Richmond, raise the question sharply as to whether good 
judgment and due economy have always been observed in the purchase of 
land for school purposes. Inquiry among officials familiar with the pro¬ 
cedure followed in purchasing school sites has elicited the information that 
in recent years, at least, it has been almost the universal practice to resort 
to condemnation proceedings. This method is not only expensive in it¬ 
self but also tends to eliminate the possibility of acquiring land upon terms 
as favorable as are ordinarily secured in private bargains. 

If similar conditions prevail in other parts of the state, it is apparently 
true that appreciation in the value of school sites cannot be counted upon 
as a material item. The depreciation of school buildings and equipment in 
the City of New York in the single year 1921 1 was much more than the 
total appreciation in the value of all school sites in the city since their orig¬ 
inal acquisition. 

1 The figure is $2,524,455 as compared with $1,641,298. 































PLANT COSTS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 


91 


The Adequacy of the School Plant 

The statistics of double sessions and part-time enrolments in the schools of 
the City of New York, presented on page 119, throw light on the inadequacy 
of the present physical equipment of the schools. This information is sup¬ 
plemented in an interesting fashion by the tables presented earlier in this 
chapter (pages 83-86) showing the dates of construction of school buildings. 

The table constructed from data gathered by the Rural School Survey 
(page 85) shows that three-eighths of the one- to four-teacher rural school 
buildings now in use in the state were constructed before the Civil War. 
No less than 48 of the 1,178 One-teacher schools included in the sampling 
were built before the, year 1825. 

In the City of New York there are 6 buildings, a century or more old, 
which are still in service. No less than 160 buildings, or 30 per cent 1 
of the total number, are more than 50 years old. However, since one-half 
of the total number have been constructed since 1896, the average age of 
the buildings is considerably less than those in the country districts. 

It is not possible from the data available to make a satisfactory state¬ 
ment regarding quality of construction of New York school buildings. 
In the City of New York, 260 out of a total of 575 buildings (including 
certain leased buildings) for which the facts are published, are classed as 
C, CD, or D. Class C consists of brick buildings with wooden floor beams, 
and Class D is made up of wooden buildings including portables. Seventy- 
five out of a recorded total of 567 are constructed of wood; and 467 are 
of brick, or stone, or of stone and brick together. 

Table 34 gives the facts concerning types of construction for a large 
sampling of school buildings in the state, outside of the City of New York. 


TABLE 34 

TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS IN CERTAIN DIS¬ 
TRICTS—STATE OF NEW YORK, REPORTED IN 1922 


Class of District 

Percentage 
of Districts 
Reporting 

Percentage of Each Exterior Construction Type 

Brick 

Frame 

Stone 

Concrete 

Block 

Fireproof 

Cities of Second Class . . 

71.4 

90.6 

6.3 



3.1 

Cities of Third Class . . . 

75.5 

88.8 

7.2 

1.8 

0.4 

1.8 

Villages over 4500 .... 

60.3 

68.0 

24.7 

4.1 

1.6 

1.6 

Union Schools, Four-Year 

54.1 

63.1 

30.7 

3.8 

2.4 


Union Schools, Three-Year . 

54.7 

22.4 

68.6 

3.0 

4.5 

1.5 

Union Schools, Two-Year 

35.5 

36.4 

54.5 




Union Schools, One-Year 

45.3 

37.4 

50.0 


4.2 


Rural Supervisory .... 

63.5 

7.6 

91.1 

1.3 




It is clear that much of the school plant now in service is very old and 
distinctly below the standards of construction considered satisfactory. 

1 That is, 30 per cent of the 534 owned buildings. Leased buildings are excluded. 





















CHAPTER VI 


THE SUPPORT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

— AN ANALYSIS OF THE SOURCES 

Three-fourths of the funds used to support the system of public educa¬ 
tion in the State of New York are raised by the local political subdivisions 
— the school districts, the villages, and the cities. The remainder is 
raised by the state, except for a relatively insignificant portion supplied by 
the federal government. Practically all of the funds come from taxes. 1 
The localities depend almost entirely upon the property tax (which in 
New York State is practically a tax on real estate), while the state and 
the federal government use a variety of taxes. This chapter gives, in the 
first place, the amounts of school revenues raised by the local divisions, 
the state, and the federal government; second, explains the manner in 
which the state and the federal government participate in the support of 
the system; and, third, shows the character of the revenues used to 
finance the system. The following chapter, pages 107-115, describes briefly 
the system of taxation in force in the State of New York. 

Analysis of Support by Political Divisions. — During the period under 
review, the figures clearly show a trend toward increased state and 
national participation in the support of public education in the state. 
While the localities continue to meet by far the largest portion of the ex¬ 
penses of the school system, with the state second, and the federal govern¬ 
ment an unimportant third, there have been, nevertheless, remarkable dif¬ 
ferences in the rates of increase of the several political divisions. While 
local support has increased approximately two and one-half times, state 
support has increased five times, and federal ten times. Whereas in 1910 
local political divisions supplied 86 per cent of the support, in 1922 they 
supplied only 77 per cent. Even with its tenfold increase in twelve years, 
the federal share now amounts only to ^ of one per cent of the total 
support of public education in the state. 

Practically all of the increase in state support has come in the past three 
years. It required ten years for the state’s contribution to grow from eight to 
eleven and one-half millions. Since 1919, it has grown to forty-one millions. 
This growth is explained by recent state-wide salary increases granted to 
teachers, the burden of which was assumed directly by the state treasury. 2 

1 This statement ignores the receipts from borrowings. 

2 The Lockwood-Donohue bill signed in May, 1920, taking effect in August, 1920, increased teachers’ 
salaries throughout the state, and established minimum salaries in all public schools of the state. Pre- 

92 


SOURCES OF SUPPORT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 


93 


TABLE 35 

TOTAL REVENUE FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION, CLASSIFIED BY 
POLITICAL DIVISIONS SUPPLYING THE FUNDS 

For Years Ending July 31, 1910-1922 
State and Local — State of New York 


Year 

Local Support 1 

State Support 2 

Federal Support 3 

Total 

1910 

$49,014,785 

$8,120,755 

$68,000 

$57,203,540 

1911 

51,033,461 

8,487,449 

75,000 

59,595,910 

1912 

57,000,373 

9,358,509 

80,000 

66,438,882 

1913 

62,371,624 

9,882,714 

80,000 

72,334,338 

1914 

63,471,154 

9,668,303 

80,000 

73,219,457 

1915 

66,169,995 

10,030,271 

116,587 

76,316,853 

1916 4 5 

67,349,310 

9,214,983 

153,484 

76,697,777 

1917 

70,751,374 

10,119,430 

157,355 

81,028,159 

1918 

77,781,698 

10,619,803 

339,751 

88,741,252 

1919 

85,125,397 

11,579,783 

431,168 

97,136,348 

1920 

97,295,296 

17,404,748 

636,868 

115,336,912 

1921 

119,102,990 

39,514,710 

672,158 s 

159,289,858 

1922 

138,030,994 

41,114,317 

670,649 

179,815,960 


City of New York 

Only 


1910 

$33,521,451 

$1,797,589 


$35,319,040 

1915 

42,628,765 

2,201,187 


44,829,952 

1920 

57,840,587 

5,050,161 

$56,893 

62,947,641 

1921 

71,790,794 

17,103,492 

48,767 

88,943,053 

1922 

82,206,195 

17,756,194 

107,377 

100,069,766 


1 In 1910, taxes accounted for all but $100,000 of this sum, and in 1921, for all except $637,113. For the 
first ten years, it was necessary to estimate the amount of this non-tax, miscellaneous revenue, because the 
reports of the State Department of Education include proceeds of temporary loans and other non-revenue 
receipts in such a manner that it is impossible to separate them. The estimate is based on the assumption 
that the relationship of the miscellaneous revenues to the total tax revenues was the same in the earlier 
years as that which was obtained in the year 1920, when it was possible to secure a fairly precise separation 
of the items in the state report. 

2 This item includes not merely all state appropriations for educational purposes from the general state rev¬ 
enues, but also the interest on the permanent school fund, the amount of which is shown in Table 39, p. 104. 

3 This figure represents federal revenues available for educational purposes in the State of New York. 
It includes federal appropriations for colleges of agricultural and mechanic arts, for the “ states-relations 
service,” for vocational rehabilitation, and cooperative vocational work. 

4 The state’s fiscal year was changed at this time so that certain of the figures are for a nine-month 
rather than a twelve-month period. 

5 See footnote 5, Table 36, p. 95. 

Subventions. — The figures in the preceding section show the sums 1 
collected by the various political divisions for the support of public edu- 

viously only cities had such minimum salaries. The increases in the cities ranged from $300 to $600 for reg¬ 
ular teachers. The increase in state quotas established by this bill was sufficient to pay the increase in 
the minimum salary for a beginning teacher, but not the annual increments. The legislature appropriated 
$22 550,000 for carrying out the provisions of the bill. For further details, see "The New York State 
Salary Bill ” (summary for the Bulletin of the University of the State of New York, by Mr. Frank B. Gil¬ 
bert), in School and Society, XI, June 5, 1920, pp. 689-690; also Education Law, July 1, 1922, Sections 
491-a and 882-889, and same sections in Education Law, July 1, 1919. 
i Loans being disregarded. 


























94 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


cation in the State of New York, 1 but not all of these moneys were spent 
directly for education by the political divisions collecting them. Indeed 
all of the sums credited in the table to the federal government, and a large 
portion of the sums credited to the state, were distributed to other juris¬ 
dictions before being actually spent. Amounts received by one political 
division from some other political division ordinarily appear as receipts in 
the accounts of the recipient, involving the possibility of double or even 
triple counting. In Table 35 such transfers have not been permitted to 
distort the figures. As given, these figures represent the actual revenue 
collections of the federal, state, and local governments devoted to the 
support of the system of public education in New York. This section 
indicates the extent to which the funds of the various political divisions 
are transferred to other divisions for expenditure, and explains briefly 
the basis upon which such subventions are made. In a later section of 
the report 2 material is introduced bearing upon the results of the state 
subvention system in actual operation. 

Basis of Subventions. — A precise description of the basis upon which 
federal and state money is apportioned among the localities is an elaborate 
undertaking. The present arrangements are the product of a long history 
of piecemeal legislation. The result is chaos. The standards used are 
so numerous, and are combined and conditioned in so many different ways, 
that a simple description is exceedingly difficult, and a precise appraisal 
of the relative importance of all the different standards is quite out of the 
question. It is indeed suggested, at this point, that unless the reader has 
a special interest in the details of the subvention problem, he may find 
it wise to skip the remainder of this chapter. The material it contains, 
however, cannot properly be omitted, since it is essential for any complete 
understanding of the fiscal support of public education in the State of 
New York. 

A description of the manner in which the subventions are made falls 
naturally into three parts, as follows: 

(а) The basis used by the federal government in distributing funds among the states; 

(б) The basis used by the state in distributing among the local units the portion of 
the federal money which it does not itself spend directly; and 

(c) The basis used by the state in distributing its own funds (as contrasted with 
federal money) among the local units. 

Each will be discussed in turn. 

(a) The Federal Basis. — The federal government utilizes the follow¬ 
ing five criteria in apportioning funds among the states for education: 

(1) The state per se; 

(2) The ratio of rural population in each state to total rural population of all states; 

1 It should be noted that no federal expenditures on strictly federal educational projects are credited 
to New York in the figures included in this chapter. 2 See pp. 162-166. 


SOURCES OF SUPPORT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 


95 


(3) The ratio of the total population of the state to the total population of all states; 

(4) The ratio of the urban population of the state to total urban population of all 
states; 

(5) The appropriation of similar sums by the states or localities. 

The criteria used in the distribution of each federal subvention in which 
New York shares, and the financial importance of each subvention, are 
shown in Table 36. 

TABLE 36 


AMOUNT AND BASIS OF FEDERAL SUBVENTIONS FOR EDUCATION 

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 1921 


Subvention 

Amount Appropriated to 
Public Education in the 
State by Federal Govern¬ 
ment, Year Ending June 
30, 1921 

Criteria Used as 
Basis of Dis¬ 
tribution 1 

Colleges of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts 



(Morrill Act, 1862) . 

$ 50,000 

1 

Experiment Stations (Hatch Act, 1887) . 
Cooperative Agricultural Extension Work 

30,000 

1 

(chiefly Smith-Lever Act, 1914) 2 . . 

203,728 

2 and 5 

Vocational Rehabilitation . 

Cooperative Vocational Work (Smith- 
Hughes Act, 1917) 

74,587 3 

3 and 5 

In Agriculture. 

In Trade, Home Economics, and In- 

48,839 4 

2 and 5 

dustry 5 . 

212,376 4 

4 and 5 

In Vocational Education for Teachers 

99,449 4 
$718,979 6 

3 and 5 


1 The figures in this column refer to the list of criteria appearing on page 97. 

* In addition to the “regular Lever” appropriation of $131,121, this item includes (1) the “supplemen¬ 
tary Lever ’ appropriation of $58,607; (2) an allotment of $10,500 from a lump-sum appropriation to 
the States Relations Service of the United States Department of Agriculture for extension work on its 
own part (not a part of Smith-Lever funds) ; and (3) miscellaneous allotments from the Department of 
Agriculture for the joint employment of specialists amounting to $3,500. 

3 Of this amount received by the state during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1921, only $2,797.68 was 
expended. To the unexpended balance of $71,788.98 was added $26,861.41 during the year ending June 30, 
1922. From these funds $31,767.88 was spent, leaving a balance on June 30, 1922, of $66,882.51. 

4 These sums were appropriated by the federal government and received by the state during the fiscal 
year ending July 31, 1921. Distributions to the localities were made in the fall of 1921, and appear in the 
school reports for the year ending July 31, 1922. 

6 One-third of the money allotted must be used for part-time or continuation school work. 

6 This amount, $718,979, differs from the sum given in Table 35 ($672,158) by $46,821 in spite of the fact 
that the $672,158 is supposed to represent appropriations rather than state receipts. The difference is 
explained by errors in allocating the federal grant. The final check showed that the item of $74,586.66 
(vocational rehabilitation) was inadvertently omitted and that an item of approximately $16,000 was 
apparently twice counted. The totals appearing in the general tables were not changed upon the dis¬ 
covery of this discrepancy because, first, the amounts are relatively small, second, the errors tend to counter¬ 
act each other and, third, because a precise adjustment is impossible, the federal reports themselves con¬ 
taining discrepancies which have proved impossible of reconciliation. 


It will be observed that the federal system of apportioning money among 
the states is still in a stage of relative simplicity. The older grants, those 



















96 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


for agricultural colleges (1862) and for experiment stations (1887), are 
in^ the form of a flat amount to each state. The five most recent sub¬ 
ventions 1 all include the “ half-and-half ” feature which requires that 
the states (or localities) accepting the federal money shall match the fed¬ 
eral grant, dollar for dollar. In addition all five use population, in some 
form, as an additional standard in determining the size of the grant. In 
other words, the federal subvention system (so far as the grants are not 
flat, equal amounts to each state) aims to apportion the sums in propor¬ 
tion to the size of the task to be performed (population basis) and in a 
manner which will stimulate state activity along particular lines (“ half- 
and-half ” feature). 

( b ) The State Basis for Distributing Federal Funds. — Part of the fed¬ 
eral money goes directly to certain institutions, not passing through the 
hands of the State Department of Education at all; part is expended 
either by the department itself, or by state or private institutions which 
receive the money from the state department; and still a third part is 
passed on by the state to schools maintained by local political units. 

Of the items appearing in Table 36, the first item of $50,000 goes 
to Cornell University, passing through the State Comptroller’s office on 
the way. 2 Of the second item of $30,000, Cornell receives $27,000 and 
the State Experiment Station at Geneva $3,000, the money going directly 
to these institutions from the Federal Treasury and not passing through 
any state office on the way. The third item, $203,728, also a direct fed¬ 
eral payment, goes to Cornell University. The State Department of 
Education receives the fourth item ($74,587) and makes grants from this 
fund to various institutions which provide for the work in vocational re¬ 
habilitation. 

Part of the money received by the state for cooperative vocational work 
in agriculture (the fifth item in Table 36) goes to the six special state schools 
of agriculture and part to local public schools maintaining approved agri¬ 
cultural courses. For each approved teacher of such subject, in an ap¬ 
proved local school, whose salary is $1,400 or more, $200 is given, and in 
addition a sum equal to two-thirds of the amount by which the salary ex¬ 
ceeds the $1,400 minimum. The total given for any one teacher, however, 
is limited to $866.66. 

The federal money for cooperative vocational work in trade, home eco¬ 
nomics, and industry (next to last item in table) is granted subject to the 
condition that at least one-third must be expended for part-time or con¬ 
tinuation schools. 

The basis used by the state in distributing the money to the part-time 

1 All of these grants have been established in the past ten years, beginning with the Smith-Lever Act 
of 1914. 

1 $30,000 goes to the University as such and $20,000 specifically to the College of Agriculture in the 
University. 


SOURCES OF SUPPORT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 


97 


or continuation schools is a double one: There is, first, the supervision 
quota, which consists of two-thirds of the salary in excess of $1,500 (limit 
of quota, $1,000) of a full-time supervisor ;* in the second place, there is a 
quota for cities and districts not employing a supervisor which consists 
of a sum equal to two-thirds of such part of the salary paid to one teacher 2 
as is in excess of $1,500 (maximum $1,000). The basis of the distribution 
to unit trade schools (as distinguished from part-time or continuation 
schools) is teachers’ salaries once more, but in this case nothing is given 
toward the expenses of supervision, and the subvention of federal money 
is arranged so as to supplement the $1,000 grant of state money 3 to the 
extent necessary to insure the payment, from these sources combined, of 
two-thirds of the total salary of the teachers of trade and related subjects. 
All of the federal grant for teacher training cooperative vocational work, 
the last item in the table, is spent directly by the state without distribu¬ 
tion to the local units. 

It is clear that, in so far as the state redistributes to localities the money 
it receives from the federal government, it does so on the basis of sharing 
salary costs of teachers and supervisors of special subjects. It is a plan 
of distribution designed primarily to stimulate the development of particu¬ 
lar portions of the educational program. 

(c) The State Basis for Distributing State Funds. — The system of dis¬ 
tributing state moneys has passed through a long evolution. As early as 
1786 the state established the so-called “literature fund ” to aid in financ¬ 
ing academic departments for the training of teachers. The “ common- 
school fund” was first set up in 1805, the first distributions being made in 
1814. The proceeds from these two funds, together with those of the 
“ United States Deposit Fund,” established in 1837 from distributions 
from the national surplus, supplied from ten to twenty per cent of the 
common school revenues during the first half of the nineteenth century. 4 
In addition to the distributions of the proceeds of these permanent school 
funds, the state continuously since 1851 5 has apportioned to the localities 
money raised by general state taxes, and has increased such tax-money 
grants to a point where they now quite overshadow the distributions from 
the permanent funds. 

No less than thirteen different criteria are now used in distributing state 
school money to the local units. They are: 

1 It is necessary that the district or city employing the supervisor shall employ four or more teachers 
for the instruction of part-time pupils and shall pay such teachers’ salaries which amount to a sum at least 
twice as great as the supervision quota. 

2 This teacher must devote full time to the instruction of part-time pupils and to the coordination of the 
work of such part-time pupils with the instruction. 

3 See p. 100, footnote 7. 

4 T. E. Finegan, “Free Schools, 15th Annual Report of the Education Department, New York, 1919”; 
F. H. Swift, “ History of Public Permanent Common School Funds in the United States, 1795-1905”; 
S. S. Randall, “Common School System of the State of New York, 1851.” 

5 Such distributions were also made for the period 1795-1800. 


98 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

(1) The school district per se ; 1 

(2) The employment of a superintendent ; 

(3) The number of licensed teachers employed; 

(4) The population of the district; 

(5) The assessed valuation of property of the district; 

(6) The maintenance of a high school; 2 * 

(7) The number of non-resident students 3 attending the high school; 

(8) The aggregate daily attendance in the high school; 

(9) The maintenance of a teachers’ training class; 

(10) Aggregate daily attendance in training schools; 

(11) Amount spent for books, apparatus, etc.; 

(12) Length of school term; 

(13) Salary of teachers. 

Which of these criteria apply to each state “ quota ” and the relative 
financial importance of the quotas are shown in Table 37. 

Table 37, elaborate as it is, throws very little light either upon the rel¬ 
ative importance in actual practice of the various criteria or upon the 
theory upon which the criteria were selected. 



Amounts Distrib¬ 
uted on Basis op 
Flat Amount per 
Teacher 

Amount of Distri¬ 
butions Affected 
by the Assessed 
Value of Property 
and the Population 

" - 1 - 

District Quota 1 . 

Teachers’ Quota. 

Additional Teachers' Quota 2 . 

Total. 

$1,292,375 

4,665,159 

10,899,400 

$16,856,934 

$215,750 

15,556,265 

$15,772,015 


1 This division was made by assigning to the first column the minimum amount, $125, for each district, 
and all the rest to the second column. 

2 The tables of the State Department show a total of 55,732 teachers for 1920-1921. Deducting the 610 
physical training teachers and the 625 vocational teachers on account of which no additional quotas are al¬ 
lowed, the figure of 54,497 is obtained. Multiplying by $200, the minimum grant, the figure of $10,899,400, 
given above, is obtained. 

Three of the quotas —the “district quota,” the “teachers’ quota,” 
and the “additional teachers’ quota”—taken together, account for 
$32,628,949 or 91 per cent of the total state subventions. This entire 
sum goes to pay teachers’ salaries. 4 The conditions are imposed that 
licensed teachers must be employed at least 180 days per year to secure 
the full quota and that annual reports must be rendered, but these 
(the sole criteria directly affecting standards which are used in distrib- 

1 Subject to the qualification that no district quota is given when the district does not either employ a 
teacher or contract with some other district for the education of its pupils. 

2 Not only the maintenance of an academic department (high school), but also the number of years 
of instruction offered in such department, are taken into account. 

3 That is, students from districts not maintaining an academic department, or from districts maintaining 
one which does not offer a full four-year curriculum. 

4 With the negligible exception that in “contracting” districts, the “District Quota” may be used 
for purposes of transportation and tuition. 




















SOURCES OF SUPPORT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 


99 


uting these three quotas) are of such slight importance that they can be 
ignored, especially since partial quotas are often given when a teacher is 
employed for a shorter period. 1 

The table on page 98 presents an estimate of the extent to which the 
allotment of these three quotas depends on population and the assessed 
value of property. It appears that less than half of the total subvention is 


TABLE 37 

AMOUNT AND BASIS OF STATE SUBVENTIONS FOR EDUCATION — 

STATE OF NEW YORK, 1922 


Subvention 

Amounts Appor¬ 
tioned during 
Year Ending 
Judy 31, 1922 1 

Criteria Used 
as Basis op 
Distribution 2 

Common School Fund 

District Quota 3 . 

Supervisory Quota 4 . 

Teachers’ Quota 5 . 

Additional Teachers’ Quota 6 . 

Vocational Quota 7 . 

Physical Training Quota 8 . 

Teachers’ Expenses at Conferences. 

Supplementary Apportionment 9 . 

Indian Schools 10 . 

$ 1,508,125 
94,400 
4,665,159 
26,455,665 
946,116 
365,467 
174,191 
9,209 
15,900 

1 and 5 

2 and 4 

3 and 12 

3, 4, 5, and 1 

3, 12, and 13 

3, 12, and 13 

Total. 

$34,234,232 


Academic Fund 

Academic Quota 11 . 

Non-resident Tuition 12 . 

Grants for Books and Apparatus 13 . 

Grants to Sectarian Academies 14 . 

$540,200 

853,756 

125,000 

5,987 

6 

7 

3, 6, and 11 

8 

Total. 

Training Classes and Schools 16 . 

$1,524,943 

90,000 

9 and 10 

Grand Total 16 . 

$35,849,175 



1 The amounts shown in this column were apportioned during the year indicated. Certain small amounts 
were not actually paid to the districts in the period. The apportionment is based upon an appropriation 
made in the year 1921, as reported for that year. 

2 The numbers in this column refer to the list of criteria given on p. 97. 

3 The detailed distribution of this quota was as follows: 

911 districts, assessed valuation less than $10,000, @ $200 $182,200 

2,085 districts, assessed valuation $20,000 to $40,000, @$175 364,875 

1,727 districts, assessed valuation $40,000 to $60,000, @$150 259,050 

5,616 districts, assessed valuation over $60,000, @ $125 702,000 

10,339 $1,508,125 

4 $800 to each district with a population of 4,500 or more employing a whole-time superintendent. The 
amount was apportioned to 59 cities and to 59 villages. 

5 $100 for every teacher, after the first in each district, employed for at least 180 full days. Districts with 
only one teacher do not share in this quota, the “district quota” (cf. note 3 above) being considered a 
grant for the first teacher. 

6 From $200 to $600 per teacher (employed for at least 180 full days) for salary increases, the amount 
varying directly (but irregularly) with the population and inversely with amount of the assessed value of 
property. The results are indicated in the following statement: 

1 Partial quotas are granted if a satisfactory reason is given for failure to maintain school for the legal 

term or when new classes are formed or positions are abolished. 


• a i* 
































100 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


affected by these basic factors in the financial problem. Further discus¬ 
sion of this important question is presented in Chapter XII, pp. 162-166. 


_ Amount of Quota 

Type of District per Teacher 

(а) One-teacher districts, assessed valuation over $100,000 $200 

One-teacher districts, assessed valuation of 99,000 203 

One-teacher districts, assessed valuation of 98,000 206 

(etc. adding $3. for each $1,000 decrease in assessed valuation) 

(б) Districts with two or more teachers but no academic department.300 

(c) Districts maintaining academic departments, villages under su¬ 

perintendents, and all cities except those specified . . „ . . . 350 

( d) Albany, Schenectady, Troy (including Lansingburg), Utica, 

Binghamton, and Niagara Falls .. 450 

( e) Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Yonkers, Mount Vernon, New 

Rochelle, White Plains, Lackawanna.550 

(/) City of New York.600 


The statement made above that the grant varies directly (but irregularly) with the population is based 
on the form of the law which classifies the grants roughly according to the classes of cities and the districts. 
However, it is a fact that, while in class (a) (the one-teacher districts) the amount of the grant increases 
as the assessed valuation decreases, the reverse principle applies for the other classes; that is, in general, 
the amount of the grant increases as the assessed values increase. This is shown by the following figures 
of per-capita real estate assessments for 1920: 


Class (c) 

Union School Districts . 
Villages over 4,500 . . 

Cities except those specified 
Class (d) 

Albany, Schenectady, etc. . 
Class (e) 

Buffalo, Rochester, etc. . 
Class (/) 

City of New York . . . 


Middle Case 

$829 

860 

892 

$1,160-1,081 

1,560-1,420 

1,632 


Thus a single quota subsidizes the very rich and the very poor local units more heavily than the moder¬ 
ately rich districts. 

7 Vocational and agricultural quotas; part-time and continuation school and evening vocational quotas. 
The state pays two-thirds of the salary paid the first teacher, but not more than $1,000, and one-half the 
salary of each additional teacher, but not to exceed $1,000 for each teacher for full year of 180 days, for 
each separately organized vocational school. This item of $946,116 also includes the so-called “ Director of 
Agriculture Quota,” which covers one-half of the salary paid, not to exceed $600. All money distrib¬ 
uted comes from the state and none from the federal government. 

8 The state pays one-half of the salary of a licensed physical training teacher, but not to exceed $600. 

* This is an adjustment because of items not included in the original apportionment. 

10 The state pays $150 for each teacher in the Indian schools. 

11 $200 for each year of academic instruction to a school maintaining an academic department (high 
school) and for each year of high school work in a non-sectarian private academy. 

12 $50 for each non-resident pupil from a district which does not maintain an academic department at 
all, or one which offers less than the four-year curriculum. In the latter case the student must complete 
such work as is offered in his local high school before the tuition becomes available. 

13 Amounts which vary from year to year depending upon the available funds up to a maximum of $250 
to each high school maintained by a city, to each union free school district maintaining an academic de¬ 
partment, and to each non-sectarian private academy ; $18 to each school district, including cities plus $2 
for each licensed teacher employed for the legal term. This quota is contingent upon the expenditure of 
like sums by the localities. 

14 This grant is distributed on the basis of aggregate daily attendance of academic pupils 

48 $700 for each academy and union free school district maintaining a training class in accordance with 
the state requirements. To secure the full quota of $700 the class must contain at least ten students in 
attendance. The remainder of the appropriation is given to training schools on the basis of aggregate 
attendance. The district or city also receives the “ Teachers’ Quota ” and the “Additional Teachers’ 
Quota ” for each teacher employed for the legal term in the training classes and schools. 

48 Effective for the first time in 1922, there is, in addition to all of the grants here listed, a new one called 
the Americanization Quota,” or “ Quota for Immigrant Education.” The state pays one-half of the salary 
of each teacher of immigrants, not to exceed $1,000. This quota involves the use of criteria 3, 12, and 13. 










SOURCES OF SUPPORT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 101 


Amounts of Subventions. — In Table 38 are shown the sums supplied 
by the federal and state governments toward the support of public edu¬ 
cation in the state, analyzed to indicate the inter-treasury transfers. 

Thus the first column shows the sums which the federal government 
granted the state 1 and which were expended without being passed on to 
the local political divisions, such as the appropriations for colleges of agri¬ 
cultural and mechanic arts 2 and appropriations under the states-relations 
service. 

The second column gives the sums which the federal government granted, 
but which were merely passed on by the state to the localities, for expen¬ 
diture. The only appropriations of this class are those for vocational 
education. 

The third column gives the sums of state money granted to the localities. 

Column four gives the sums of state money spent by the state in car¬ 
rying out functions connected with the system of public education. 

The last column presents a figure which represents the total amount of 
assistance 3 to the localities, whether in terms of money given or functions 
taken over and performed by the state. 

These figures make it possible to correct an impression which might 
otherwise be thought to flow naturally from the facts presented in Table 
35, 4 namely, that the increased importance of the element of state support 
in the financing of the school system indicates a corresponding encroach¬ 
ment upon local autonomy in school administration. Table 38 supplies 
evidence that such is not the case. Moneys given outright 5 to the lo¬ 
calities by the state have increased sevenfold, while the sums spent by the 
state directly on education have less than doubled. It will be recalled 
that during this period the total cost of education trebled. In other 
words, while the state now raises a larger share of the total school 
funds and the localities tax themselves for a smaller share than was the 
case twelve years ago, the per cent the state spends directly is grow¬ 
ing smaller. 

Analysis of Support by Fiscal Nature of the Sources. — Table 39 shows 
that taxes supplied approximately ninety-nine per cent of all the revenues 
both in 1910 and in 1922. The nature of the tax system which produced 
this revenue is described later (pp. 107-115). 

1 No attempt has been made to allocate to New York State an arbitrary proportion of the expenditures 
made directly by the federal government in carrying out its own peculiar educational functions. 

2 The phrase “granted the state” is not interpreted so as to exclude funds which do not pass physically 
through the state treasury or the State Department of Education. See p. 96. 

3 Assistance is here used in the sense of moneys raised rather than expenditures made. 

4 See p. 93. 

5 It is true, of course, that the increased state subventions of recent years are definitely dedicated to 
teachers’ salaries and in so far as this operates as a restriction upon the disposal of the money, it may pos¬ 
sibly be termed an impairment of local autonomy. However, the state does give the money to the localities, 
subject to this one restriction as to its use, leaving the locality the same degree of freedom as before in 
organizing and administering its school system. 


102 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


TABLE 38 

FEDERAL AND STATE SUBVENTIONS FOR SUPPORT OF PUBLIC 
EDUCATION — STATE OF NEW YORK, 1910-1922 


For Years Ending July 31 


Year 

Federal Grants 
for Education in 
New York Pass¬ 
ing to Other 
Agencies than 
the Local School 
Systems 

Federal Grants 
for Education in 
New York Pass¬ 
ing to Local 
School Systems 1 

State Grants to 
Localities 2 

Other State 
Revenue Ex¬ 
pended by 
State for 
Education 3 

Total 

1910 

$ 68,000 

None 

$ 5,296,569 

$ 2,284,186 

$ 8,188,755 

1911 

75,000 

iC 

5,446,152 

2,667,603 

8,562,449 

1912 

80,000 

U 

5,588,466 

3,770,043 

9,438,509 

1913 

80,000 

u 

5,760,796 

4,121,918 

9,962,714 

1914 

80,000 

u 

5,769,106 

3,899,197 

9,748,303 

1915 

166,587 

u 

6,077,844 

3,952,427 

10,146,858 

1916 4 

133,484 

u 

6,291,640 

2,923,343 

9,348,467 

1917 

157,355 

u 

7,716,220 

2,403,210 

10,276,785 

1918 

339,751 

u 

6,897,001 

3,722,802 

10,959,554 

1919 

431,168 

u 1 

7,731,190 

3,848,593 

12,010,951 

1920 

521,261 

$115,607 

12,584,572 

4,820,176 

18,041,616 

1921 

551,759 5 6 

120,399 5 

33,498,506 

6,016,204 

40,186,868 

1922 

417,352 

253,297 

36,849,784 

4,264,533 

41,784,966 


1 The figures in this column represent amounts acknowledged as coming from federal sources in the 
reports of the local school systems. A small amount of money was received by the localities in the year 
1918-1919, but the form of report for that year did not call for a segregation of the amount. The following 
account of the federal money for cooperative vocational work is of interest in this connection. It should 
be considered in the light of the explanation on pages 94-97 regarding distributions of funds. Expendi¬ 
tures appearing in this table for a given year are not accounted for in the reports of the local school systems 
until the following year. 


RECEIPTS 

(Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 1917-1922) 



1917-1918 

1918-1919 

1919-1920 

1920-1921 

1921-1922 

Agricultural Education .... 
Trade, Industrial, and Home Eco- 

$ 19,535.60 

$ 29,303.40 

$ 39,071.20 

$ 48,839.00 

$ 53,390.89 

nomics. 

Teacher Training. 

84,950.35 

49,724.44 

127,425.53 

69,614.21 

169,900.71 

89,503.99 

212,375.87 

99,448.88 

239,184.56 

98,650.39 

Total. 

$154,210.39 

$226,343.14 

$298,475.90 

$360,663.75 

$391,225.84 


EXPENDITURES 


Agricultural Education .... 
Trade, Industrial, and Home Eco- 

$ 19,535.60 

$ 18,679.52 

$ 31,511.54 

$ 48,839.00 

$ 52,390.89 

nomics. 

Teacher Training. 

67,804.74 

28,163.92 

94,818.64 

45,991.84 

83,911.57 

75,637.83 

212,375.87 

99,242.45 

239,184.56 

98,650.39 

Total. 

$115,504.26 

$159,490.00 

$191,060.94 

$360,457.32 

$390,225.84 


2 These figures represent what the localities report as having received from the State Treasury and do not 
include the amounts withheld by the Department for the Retirement Fund. Because of differences in 
fiscal years, the figures do not check exactly with those of the State Comptroller, which represent the 
actual state distributions. 

3 Since the figures in this column are obtained by subtracting the state subventions as given in the 
preceding column from the total as given in the last column, there will be discrepancies with the Comp¬ 
troller’s figures for reasons explained in footnote 2. 

4 The state’s fiscal year was changed at this time so that certain of the state figures are for a nine-month 

rather than a twelve-month period. 

6 See footnote 6, Table 36, p. 95. 













































































SOURCES OF SUPPORT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 


103 


The second column, headed “ Permanent Funds,” shows the proceeds 
of the three state permanent school funds. 1 These proceeds represent the 
actual yield of interest on these funds which are invested for the most part 
in bonds of the local municipalities of the state. The yield has increased 
only slightly during the period. A similar additional item, interest on other 
educational funds, is included in the “ Miscellaneous ” total of column 
three. This item in 1920 amounted to $83,282 out of the total of $781,125 
shown in the table. This column also includes all educational fees from 
the normal schools, from the College of the City of New York, and from 
Hunter College, from the State Department of Education, and from com¬ 
mon schoolg, except the tuition of non-resident pupils paid by public au¬ 
thorities. These fees make up the bulk of the figures. An insignificant 
item of gifts is also included in column three. The growth of the “Mis¬ 
cellaneous ” group is explained almost entirely by the increase in fees charged 
in recent years by the higher educational institutions. 

The description of the precise role played by loans in state school finance 
is a task which offers some difficulties. The presentation of the book¬ 
keeping item of receipts from the sale of bonds and from short-term loans, 
the allotments to sinking funds, the repayment of bonds and other loans, 
and the payment of interest, involves possibilities of double counting and 
of a distorted view of what the true importance of loan policy has been. 

The last column in Table 39 throws considerable light on the situation. 
It represents the amount by which the school system has “ fallen behind” 2 
each year. The item “ Total Revenues ” includes no receipts from loans 
and that of “Total Expenditures” includes no repayments of loans, by 
sinking fund or otherwise, but does include all interest payments, the 
amounts of which are shown in Table 1, page 30. The last column, headed 
“Balance,” consequently shows the difference between what the school 
authorities spent in both current expenses and capital outlay and what they 
received from all sources except borrowings. 

It appears from these figures that, taking the thirteen-year period as a 
whole, the aggregate revenue, as defined above, failed to cover the aggre¬ 
gate expenditure including capital outlay by $63,310,797. This difference 
was made good by resort to credit in various forms. For the first six years 
of the period the accumulated debit balances amount to 22 millions 
($22,019,103); during the second six years the figure is 25 millions 
($25,073,245). 

For several reasons these figures cannot be expected to agree precisely 
year by year with the figures of receipts from bonds sold or with the figures 
of increases in outstanding bonds. Part of the difference is accounted for 
by temporary loans. The receipts from bond sales appear in these figures 

1 See p. 97. 

2 In the sense, merely, that current receipts have been insufficient to cover expenditures. 


104 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


only as they are expended. There are also various refunding operations which 
would distort comparisons. 

TABLE 39 

TOTAL REVENUE FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING 
TO FISCAL CHARACTER OF THE SOURCES — STATE OF NEW 

YORK, 1910-1922 


For Years Ending July 31 


Year 

Taxes 1 
(Federal, 
State, and 
Local) 

Permanent 
Funds 2 (In¬ 
terest) 

Miscellane¬ 
ous (Includes 
Tuition, Gifts, 
and Certain 
Interest 
Items) 3 

Total 

Revenues 

Total 

Expenditures 4 

Balance 
(Debit — 
Credit) 

1910 

$56,679,512 

$359,299 

$164,729 

$57,203,540 

$59,626,228 

-$2,422,688 

1911 

59,046,272 

380,784 

168,854 

59,595,910 

62,283,177 

- 2,687,267 

1912 

66,864,802 

370,591 

203,489 

67,438,882 

68,737,101 

- 1,298,219 

1913 

71,769,979 

359,120 

205,239 

72,334,338 

72,039,243 

+ 295,095 

1914 

72,592,560 

386,742 

240,155 

73,219,457 

80,600,659 

- 7,381,202 

1915 

75,681,646 

390,382 

244,825 

76,316,853 

84,841,675 

- 8,524,822 

1916 5 6 

76,103,784 

290,728 

303,265 

76,697,777 

80,118,748 

- 3,420,971 

1917 

80,269,002 

407,487 

351,670 

81,028,159 

81,859,971 

- 831,812 

1918 

87,877,619 

409,112 

454,521 

88,741,252 

89,799,439 

- 1,058,187 

1919 

96,067,470 

408,411 

660,487 

97,136,348 

98,701,237 

- 1,564,889 

1920 

114,138,491 

417,296 

781,125 

115,336,912 

117,344,153 

- 2,007,241 

1921 

158,130.246 

382,403 

777,209 

159,289,858 

175,480,003 

-16,190,145 

1922 

178,038,706 

408,414 

1,368,840 

179,815,960 

196,034,409 

-16,218,449 


1 For a subdivision of this column, see Table 41, p. 107. The item of local taxes consists almost 
entirely of property taxes levied and collected locally for school purposes. It contains, however, a small 
amount of receipts for mortgage and bank stock taxes, and, in 1921, a small amount of income tax. 

2 This represents the proceeds of the three permanent school funds which are distributed among the 
local districts. 

3 This includes tuition and fees from normal schools, State Department of Education, and common 
schools (not including tuition of non-resident pupils paid by the state or districts), gifts for educational 
purposes, and interest on educational funds other than the state permanent funds. The interest item is 
negligible. Under the classification used in the education reports, the local miscellaneous revenues, other 
than fees from the College of the City of New York and Hunter College, are not separately shown and 
have been estimated. The larger receipts from the fees of the two colleges mentioned account for much of 
the increase shown in this item in recent years. 

4 Total state and local expenditures are the sum of such expenditures reported by the state and local 
officials, respectively, with the exception of the state subventions reported by the State Comptroller. Since 
the subvention item appearing in this table is that reported by local officials and sometimes varies from the 
amount reported by the Comptroller, the sum of state and local expenditures, less the subvention items, 
will not always check precisely with the sum of state and local expenditures here given. 

The term “Total Expenditures” includes capital outlay, interest, and current expenses, but excludes 
transfers, refunds, payment on bonds and temporary loans, and payments to such funds, and other non¬ 
governmental cost payments. 

6 The state’s fiscal year was changed at this time so that certain of the state figures are for a nine-month 
rather than a twelve-month period. 

Table 40 gives the gross outstanding bonded indebtedness for each year 
in the period, together with the annual variations in the amount. It 
will be observed that the increase in 1922 over 1910 is $85,853,843. 
The difference between this figure and the $63,310,797 is explained largely 
by unexpended cash balances at the end of 1922. 
























SOURCES OF SUPPORT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION 105 

TABLE 40 


TOTAL GROSS OUTSTANDING BONDED INDEBTEDNESS 1 FOR 
EDUCATION — STATE OF NEW YORK, 2 1910-1922 


Year 

Gross Outstanding Bonded In¬ 
debtedness for Education 

Net Annual Increases (-f) 
or Decreases (—) 

1910 

$135,981,844 



1911 

135,881,110 

— 

$ 100,734 

1912 

139,845,165 

+ 

3,964,055 

1913 

143,381,744 

+ 

3,536,579 

1914 

156,551,007 

+ 

13,169,263 

1915 

162,292,016 

+ 

5,741,009 

1916 

161,755,973 

— 

536,043 

1917 

166,989,723 3 

+ 

5,233,250 

1918 

165,151,583 

— 

1,837,640 

1919 

165,942,841 3 

+ 

791,258 

1920 

169,054,408 

+ 

3,111,567 

1921 

186,171,173 

+ 

17,116,765 

1922 

221,835,687 

+ 

35,664,574 


1 Because of the difficulty of allocating to education its proper proportion of the total sinking fund in 
certain of the cities, and because of the inadequacy of the records in the case of certain districts, it proved 
impracticable to reduce this gross debt to a net basis. In the rural districts sinking funds are almost non¬ 
existent, the practice of issuing serial bonds being practically universal. 

2 The figures for the City of New York are for the calendar year in each case. Other figures are for the 
year ending July 31. 

3 In the years 1917 and 1919 the debt outside of the City of New York was arrived at by adding to the 
figure for outstanding bonded indebtedness for the year preceding, the receipts from bond sales for that 
year and subtracting the payments on bonds. 


About two-thirds of the total bonded debt for schools has been incurred 
by the City of New York. In 1920 New York’s share of the 169 millions 
of bonded debt was $126,652,938. Other cities in the state had incurred 
$29,300,000. A scant 13 millions was borrowed by the smaller political 
divisions. The relative importance of the school debt of the City of New 
York has declined materially during the past twelve years. This is ex¬ 
plained in large part by the relatively small capital outlay in the city during 
this period. 1 


1 The share of the City of New York in the total state school debt is shown by the following figures. 


Year 

Amount of School 

Debt of the City 
of New York 

Percentage of 

Total State 

School Debt 

1910 

$118,476,386 

87.12% 

1911 

117,613,273 

86.55 

1912 

119,322,849 

85.32 

1913 

123,649,848 

86.24 

1914 

126,770,890 

80.98 

1915 

130,986,509 

80.71 

1916 

128,257.208 

79.29 

1917 

128,989,723 

77.24 

1918 

127,828,114 

77.40 

1919 

126,942,841 

76.50 

1920 

126,652,938 

74.92 

1921 

137,160,824 

73.67 

1922 

152,000,000 

68.53 




























106 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


Although complete and precise information is not available, it is certain 
that only an inconsiderable fraction of the school debt is unfunded. The 
unbonded portion in 1920, for example, is reported at less than one million 
dollars, but this does not include figures for certain cities where the un¬ 
funded educational debt is not segregated in the accounts from the total 
temporary debt of the municipalities. If the ratio of such school tempo¬ 
rary debt to the funded debt is similar in these cities to the ratio in the 
municipalities where educational debt is fully segregated, the aggregate 
amount of temporary debt is relatively unimportant. It will be noted from 
Table 40 that the bonded debt in 1920 stood at 169 millions. 

School bonds may be legally issued in the State of New York only for 
refunding 1 and for capital outlay. During the thirteen years studied the 
total capital outlay was nearly twice the increase in bonded indebtedness 
($85,853,843 as compared with $153,942,157). This does not mean, of 
course, that there were no specific instances of refunding. It does indicate, 
however, that during the thirteen-year period, 1910 to 1922, the aggregate 
current receipts for school purposes from all sources, other than borrowing, 
were sufficient to meet all current expenses, meet all interest charges, and 
pay for about one-half of the new sites, buildings, and equipment acquired 
during that period. 

1 Under the authority of subdivision 8 of section 877 of the Education Law certain classes of cities 
"may temporarily borrow the amount” necessary to meet special estimates submitted by the board of 
education, covering items for extraordinary expenses by means of "city certificates of indebtedness or by 
the issuance of revenue bonds, or other municipal bonds.” The provisions of the city charters appear to 
supplement this section in some instances so as to give authority for the refunding of securities issued as 
temporary measures. Thus it is possible that in some cases bonds have been issued under special cir¬ 
cumstances for purposes other than capital outlay. 


CHAPTER VII 


THE SUPPORT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK — 

THE REVENUE SYSTEM 

The preceding chapter makes it clear that $99 out of each $100 spent for 
public education in the state (disregarding borrowings) are raised by tax¬ 
ation. The 100th dollar is supplied by income from permanent state 
school funds, tuition, fees, and interest on miscellaneous funds. 

Taxes for education are analyzed in Table 41 to show the amounts 
raised by various political divisions. Since federal funds for education 
account for less than one-half of one per cent of the total amount, it is un¬ 
necessary at this point to attempt any description of the federal revenue 
system. State taxes supply roughly twenty-five per cent, and local taxes 
seventy-five per cent, of the total school tax revenue. This section sketches 
briefly the system of state and local revenue which produced this 177 mil¬ 
lion dollars for school purposes in 1922 as well as 386 million dollars of 
taxes in addition for other public purposes. 

TABLE 41 

TOTAL TAXES FOR EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 
CLASSIFIED BY POLITICAL DIVISIONS, 1 1910-1922 

For Years Ending July 31 


Year 

Federal Funds 

State Taxes 

Local Taxes 

Total 

1910 

$ 68,000 

$ 7,696,727 

$ 48,914,785 

$ 56,679,512 

1911 

75,000 

8,037,811 

50,933,461 

59,046,272 

1912 

80,000 

8,909,429 

57,875,373 

66,864;802 

1913 

80,000 

9,443,355 

62,246,624 

71,769,979 

1914 

80,000 

9,191,406 

63,321,154 

72,592,560 

1915 

116,587 

9,545,064 

66,019,995 

75,681,646 

1916 2 

133,484 

8,820,990 

67,149,310 

76,103,784 

1917 

157,355 

9,610,273 

70,501,374 

80,269,002 

1918 

339,751 

10,089,170 

77,448,698 

87,877,619 

1919 

431,168 

11,012,905 

84,623,397 

96,067,470 

1920 

636,868 

16,824,425 

96,677,198 

114,138,491 

1921 

672,158 

38,992,211 

118,465,877 

158,130,246 

1922 

670,649 

40,421,534 

136,946,523 

178,038,706 


1 F 0 r the precise contents of these figures, see footnotes to Table 35, p. 93, and Table 39, p. 104. 

2 The state’s fiscal year was changed at this time so that certain of the state figures are for a nine-month 
rather than a twelve-month period. 


107 




















108 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


The revenue system of New York as it now stands, consists of nine major 
taxes which may be grouped as follows: 

Group One —- (Property Taxes). Tax on real estate and certain types of personal 
property. 

Group Two — (Personal Taxes). Personal income tax. 

Group Three — (Business Taxes). Business corporation income tax, bank stock tax, 
stock transfer tax, miscellaneous corporation taxes. 

Group Four — (Miscellaneous). Motor vehicle tax, inheritance tax, mortgage tax. 

The administration and distribution of these various taxes are inter¬ 
woven in rather a complicated manner. Diagram 6 shows the amounts 
yielded in 1922 by each of the nine taxes, the division of yield among the 
political divisions, and the authority collecting the taxes. 

The outstanding fact is that the property tax yields nearly three times 
as much as the other eight taxes put together. Not only is it the tax which 
supplies three-fourths of all the tax revenue of the state and localities, 
but it is also the tax which is depended upon almost exclusively for school 
taxes. Consequently, it is desirable to describe somewhat precisely its 
character and its place in the revenue system. 

The Property Tax. — The present property tax is predominately a real 
estate tax. The State of New York in earlier times, like almost all of the 
American states, attempted to impose a tax on property in general for the 
support of government in general. Much earlier than in most other states 
this tax began to disintegrate, and steps began to be taken to supplement 
it with taxes of other types. The development took the form of exemp¬ 
tion of those types of property which had proved most difficult to assess, 
and the substitution of special taxes, designed to reach more effectively the 
tax-paying ability of the owners of the exempted property. Coincident 
with this movement there developed a tendency to impose taxes upon the 
business done in the state and to establish certain special taxes upon direct 
beneficiaries, such as the motor vehicle fees. 1 The evolution is still going 
on, and important changes are anticipated in the years lying immediately 
ahead. 

In reducing the scope of the general property tax, and establishing sub¬ 
stitutes, the state has followed the general rule of diverting all or a large part 
of the proceeds of the new taxes into its own treasury and decreasing its de¬ 
mands upon the property tax. 2 As a result of this movement the property 
tax is now 98 per cent 3 a real estate tax and is 94 per cent 4 a local tax. 

1 The system of local special assessments of land, to meet the cost of public improvements, is an im¬ 
portant element in the finances of the municipalities, of which no account is taken in the figures as given 
in this section. 

2 See p. 157. 

3 In 1920 personalty amounted to only 1.72 per cent of the total assessed value of property. In 1870 
it amounted to 22.05 per cent. 

4 In 1922, of $431,412,733 total property tax levied in the state, all except $23,892,350 went to the 
localities. 


DIAGRAM 6 

Collection and Distribution of State and Local Taxes — State of New York 

For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1922 
Total Collected for This Period $563,388,591 (5) 


REVENUE SYSTEM 


109 



























































110 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


The property, other than real estate, which continues to be taxed under 
the property tax, is a mere remnant. It includes such personalty as farm 
animals and machinery, the stock-in-trade of unincorporated businesses 
and household furniture and personal effects of individuals in excess of 
$1,000. 1 Such property was assessed in 1920 at only a quarter of a billion 
dollars ($255,263,116) 2 out of a total property assessment of nearly 16 billion 
($15,850,989,607). In 1922, a legislative committee recommended the en¬ 
tire exemption of personalty which would result in the property tax being 
transformed into a tax on real estate only. 3 

Classified as real estate, and subject to the regular property tax rates, 
an item is included in the various local assessment rolls representing the 
value of the “ special franchises ” of the public utilities of various types. 
This item (which is assessed by the State Tax Commission and apportioned 
among the localities for insertion in the assessment lists) covers first, the 
value of such tangible property of these companies as is situated in the 
public streets, and, second, the value of certain intangible elements in the 
franchise which are determined usually with reference to the earning power 
of the corporations. The importance of property taxes on public utilities 
can be gauged from the following statement of property taxes collected 
from public utilities in 1920: 

Real property (in ordinary sense).$25,104,965 

Personal property. 229,683 

Special franchise (technically termed “real estate”) 

Tangible (property in streets, etc.). $9,435,385 

Intangible (based on earning power). 5,449,884 14,885,269 

$40,219,917 

This special franchise tax on public utilities has a peculiar significance 
from the point of view of school finance. The value of the special fran¬ 
chise is apportioned for purposes of taxation among the local political 
subdivisions where the property of the utilities lies. It is clear that, at 
least in so far as the intangible element in the valuation is concerned, the 
special franchise tax is not a true real estate tax, but rather approaches 
the character of a business tax and that the arrangement has the effect of 
distributing a state business tax among the localities. The method of dis-' 
tribution is such that a school district which happens to have a railroad 
passing through it, receives what is virtually a special subsidy from the 
state in the form of this additional taxable assessment. This accentuates 
a situation which is already unequal. The Davenport Legislative Com- 

1 The tangible personalty of corporations which pay the capital stock tax (see Section 205 of the Tax 
Law) remains subject to taxation for local purposes. 

2 There is reason for believing that the smallness of this figure is due not merely to legal exemptions, but 
also, to illegal undervaluation and evasion. (See “ Report of the Special Joint Committee on Taxation and 
Retrenchment, Submitted March 1, 1922,” p. 43.) 

3 See pp. 45-46 in Report cited in note 2 above. 








REVENUE SYSTEM 


111 


mittee 1 has recommended an entirely new method of taxing public utilities 
which, if adopted, will fundamentally change this situation. It should be 
noted that there is a tendency to value these special franchises fully — 
perhaps even to over- rather than under-assess them. 

The state’s share of the property tax is one which varies from year to 
year, depending upon the exigencies of the state’s fiscal needs. This tax 
provides the elastic element in the state’s revenue system. The rates of the 
income, business, and miscellaneous taxes are seldom changed and the yields 
depend upon considerations not at all identical with those which determine 
the size of the legislative appropriations. When the appropriations ex¬ 
ceed the prospective revenue from sources other than the property tax, a 
sum sufficient to meet the situation is ordinarily obtained by a state-wide 
tax on property as locally assessed, after an equalization based upon in¬ 
formation gathered by the State Tax Commission. In the period under 
consideration a state tax on property has been utilized in ten out of the 
thirteen years. The highest levy of the period was $35,006,523.91, made 
in 1920. 2 The receipts from these direct property taxes during the ten- 
year period 1911-1920 amounted to 19 per cent of the total state receipts 
for general purposes. 3 

It should be made clear that the amounts supplied by state taxes, as 
shown in Table 41, are paid from the state’s general fund, which is derived 
from many sources. They are by no means the specific product of certain 
particular state taxes, whose entire yields are dedicated to educational 
purposes alone. It is true that during the fifty-year period, 1851-1901, 
a special state school tax was imposed — a levy on property. Since 1901 
no specific tax for school purposes has been imposed by the state, the only 
close approach to specific school taxes being the levies used since 1920 for 
state-wide increases in teachers’ salaries. These levies are often popularly 
referred to as direct school taxes. The funds for these salary increases have 
come from a direct state property tax which has been alluded to in some of 
the records and reports as a specific school tax. There appears to have 


1 "Report of the Special Joint Committee on Taxation and Retrenchment, Submitted March 1, 1922,” 
p. 92 et seq. The Rural School Survey has based its recommendation of a larger school district in part 
upon the greater equality which would result from distributing the public utility franchise valuations over 

a larger area. Report, 1922, p. 234. 

2 The amounts of the state “direct” tax on property were as follows: 


1910 . . . none 

1911 . . . $6,072,766.48 

1912 . . . 11,022,985.91 

1913 . . . 6,460,093.12 


1914 . . . none 

1915 . . . $20,519,715.51 

1916 . . . none 

1917 . . . $13,058,752.65 


1918 . 

. . $13,272,069.00 

1919 . 

. . 13,523,503.27 

1920 . 

. . 35,006,523.91 

1921 . 

. . 22,340,343.66 

1922 . 

. . 31,508,336.29 


Because the fiscal year of the City of New York covers a different period from that of the state fiscal year 
the figure of levies actually extended on the rolls by the localities does not agree precisely with the levy 
figures as given above. The 1922 figure is for levies extended on the rolls. The actual collections re¬ 
ported in the State Comptroller’s Report differ from either of these because the levy is not all collected 

the same year. . 

3 "Report of the Special Joint Committee on Taxation and Retrenchment, Submitted March 1, 1922, 

p. 39. 




112 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


been no statutory authority for considering this a special school tax. It 
is true, however, that it was clearly understood by the legislators, and by 
the proponents of the bill, that the increases in teachers’ salaries would 
involve an addition to the state direct tax, and in this sense it may be con¬ 
sidered a specific state tax for schools. 

Though the property tax is a variable and diminishing source of state 
revenue, it is both a constant and increasing source of local revenue and 
of school support. It has been seen 1 that the localities carry three-fourths 
of the financial load of public education, and that the tax which supplies 
the money is the local property tax. 

The assessment of property is a local function, except for the activities 
of the State Tax Commission in assessing special franchises of corporations, 
in cooperating informally with local assessors, and in assisting in the equal¬ 
ization of local assessments for purposes of apportioning the state direct 
tax. The assessors are town, village, or city officials, elected for a term of 
two or four years, except that under permissive legislation, a few cities 
(including the City of New York) have improved their assessment ma¬ 
chinery by appointing their force of assessors on the merit basis for an in¬ 
definite term. All tax levies — school, municipal, and state, are extended 
on the same assessment base, subject to equalization. 

The control of the amount of school tax to be levied rests in most sections 
of the state with the local board of education or board of school trustees, 
which, with a few exceptions, is an elected body. 2 These boards of educa¬ 
tion, except in a few cities, have complete independence in making up the 
school budget, fixing the school tax rate, 3 and controlling expenditures. 

In most cities school taxes are collected with other city taxes by the 
city collector, and all school funds are kept with city funds by the city 
treasurer, subject to written orders from the board of education. 4 This 
is the general rule in other types of municipalities except that the union 
free school districts 5 6 and the rural school districts have their own school tax 


1 See p. 92. 

2 In the cities of Albany, Beacon, Binghamton, Buffalo, Cohoes, Cortland, Fulton, Glen Cove, Hudson, 
Kingston, New Rochelle, New York City, Niagara Falls, Oneida, Oneonta, Oswego, Poughkeepsie, Rens¬ 
selaer, Schenectady, Tonawanda, Troy, Watertown, Watervliet, White Plains, and Yonkers, boards of 
education are appointed by the mayor or common council or both. In Elmira, Little Falls, Middletown, 
and Plattsburg some of the members are appointed. New York State Bureau of Municipal Information, 
Report Number 712. 

3 For a statement as to the extent to which these bodies are independent of the general municipal author¬ 
ity, and for a general discussion of separate financing, see p. 177. 

4 School taxes are collected at a different time of year from other taxes in Auburn, Batavia, Canandaigua, 
Corning, Dunkirk, Elmira, Geneva, Glens Falls, Gloversville, Hornell, Ithaca, Jamestown, Johnstown, 
Kingston, Lackawanna, Lockport, Mechanicville, Norwich, Olean, Oneonta, Port Jervis, and Sherrill. 
School taxes are collected with other taxes, but segregated so that taxpayers may know the amount of 
the school tax, in Fulton, Little Falls, Mount Vernon, North Tonawanda, Ogdensburg, Rensselaer, Utica, 
Watertown, and Yonkers. 

New York State Bureau of Municipal Information, Report Number 712. 

6 Where the limits of a union free school district are not coterminous with a village this is true, but if the 
limits are coterminous the law specifies that the village collector shall collect the school taxes. 


REVENUE SYSTEM 


113 


collectors, appointed by the school board in the former case, and elected 
by the school electorate in the latter. Most of the school taxes are paid to 
these collectors, but taxes levied on public utilities in these districts 
may be paid to the county treasurer instead of to the district collector, 
and the county treasurer must remit to the district the amount of all 
delinquent taxes on real estate, and then proceed to collect them. De¬ 
linquent public utility taxes, on the contrary, are collected by the school 
tax collector. The district collector receives a fee of one per cent on all 
taxes, whether he succeeds in collecting them, or whether they are finally 
collected by the county treasurer, and five per cent on all delinquent taxes 
which he himself collects. 1 

The Personal Income Tax. — In 1919 New York established a personal 
income tax which in 1922 supplied 30 millions of revenue. This tax ap¬ 
plies to the total income of residents of the state, and to certain types of 
income arising within the state belonging to non-residents. Consequently 
it is not simply a comprehensive personal income tax but is, to a 
limited extent, a business income tax as well, so far as non-residents are 
concerned. 2 

The rates are progressive, ranging from one per cent on the first $10,000 
to three per cent on income in excess of $50,000. The personal exemp¬ 
tions are $1,000 for a single person, $2,000 for husband and wife plus $200 
for each dependent. The yield, after administrative expenses are paid, 
is equally divided between the state and the counties, the local distribu¬ 
tion being apportioned according to the proportion that the assessed value 
of the local real estate bears to the aggregate assessed value of the real 
estate in the state. This plan of distribution has proved to be a strong 
stimulus to full real estate assessments. The definition of income follows 
very closely the federal Revenue Act of 1918. The administration is cen¬ 
tralized under appointed state officials who have built up a permanent 
corps of assistants. 

The Business Taxes. — The present system of business taxes in New 
York State is elaborate and complicated. Corporations, in general, are 
taxed on their net income at the rate of 4.5 per cent. 3 This tax, first es¬ 
tablished in 1917, yielded 33 millions in 1922. Since dividends from cor¬ 
porations paying it are not exempt under the personal income tax, the cor¬ 
poration income tax becomes a true business tax. The income as le- 
ported for purposes of the federal income tax is used with certain slight 
modifications as the base for the tax. The administration is centralized 

1 Since the above paragraph was written a new law provides for more adequate notice of assessments 
of school taxes upon public utilities and provides an additional fee of one per cent for county treasurers 
collecting such taxes. 

2 This business tax element will be readjusted in case the recommendations of the Davenport Committee 
are adopted. The personal income tax will then become strictly a personal tax. 

3 1919 amendments to the 1917 law expanded the scope of the application of the mercantile and manu¬ 
facturing corporation tax law and raised the rate from 3 to 4.5 per cent. 


114 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


under the State Tax Commission and the yield is divided, two-thirds to 
the state and one-third to the localities in which the tangible personal 

property of the corporations is located. 1 

Banks are not taxed under the corporation income tax, but are subject 
to taxes based mainly on the value of the capital stock and surplus. 2 
Originally the bank-stock tax was part of the general property tax, 
but in the course of evolution it has come to partake of the character of a 
business tax. The rate has become conventionalized at one pei cent. 
The entire yield of taxes on shares of state and national banks goes to the 
localities. The entire yield of taxes on trust companies, savings banks, 
and investment companies goes to the state. 

The stock transfer tax is a tax of two cents per one hundred dollars, face 
value or fraction thereof, on all transfers of stock. The yield in 1922 was 
nearly eight millions, all of which went to the state. 

In addition to the business taxes listed above, there are miscellaneous 
corporation taxes, falling chiefly on public utilities, levied on varying 
bases, which in 1922 yielded the state treasury nearly 17 millions. 4 

Miscellaneous Taxes. — Motor vehicle taxes are designed to throw 
directly upon the users of the roads a part of the cost of providing road 
facilities, on the ground that the user receives a special benefit. These 
taxes yielded 14 millions in 1922. Three-fourths of the yield is kept by 
the state and spent for the maintenance and repair of improved roads. 
Each county receives one-fourth of the collections from residents of the 
county, to be used for permanent construction or improvement of town 
highways. 

The proceeds of the inheritance tax, which the state does not share with 
local units of government, amounted to 15 millions in 1922. The rates 
range from one to eight per cent, depending upon the size of the beneficial 
interest in the estate and the nearness of kin of the recipient. The initial 
exemption is $5,000 in the case of heirs most closely related to the decedent, 
and $500 in the case of others. 

The mortgage-recording tax, which yielded five and one-half millions 
in 1922, is evenly divided between the state and the localities. The tax 
consists of a fee of fifty cents for each $100 of principal debt secured by 
mortgage on real property situated within the state. The share going to 

1 In case the corporation has no tangible personalty, the location of the main office of the concern within 
the state determines the distribution. 

2 Since this paragraph was written the bank taxes have been revamped as the result of unfavorable 
court decisions. Dividends on bank stock are no longer taxed under the state personal income tax and 
“moneyed capital’’ in competition with national banks, even if owned by individuals and partnerships, 
is subject to the tax. 

8 In the case of national and state banks, the tax is technically on the shares. In the case of trust com¬ 
panies, the tax is on the institution itself, Investment companies and savings banks are subject to taxation 
on a slightly different basis from the other financial institutions. See Davenport Report, p. 183. 

4 The Davenport Committee has recommended a new unified public utility tax law, and the extension of 
the business income tax to include unincorporated businesses. 


REVENUE SYSTEM 


115 


the localities in which the mortgaged property lies is apportioned accord¬ 
ing to the assessed value of property. 

In addition to the taxes described above, the localities receive substan¬ 
tial sums from special assessments levied to pay for local improvements 
and from miscellaneous licenses and fees. 

This, then, constitutes the state and local tax system as it now stands. 
A critical evaluation of the system from the point of view of its adequacy 
to meet the demands of the educational needs of the state will be found 
in a later section of this report (pp. 156-176). 


CHAPTER VIII 


THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE FUTURE TOTAL COST OF EDUCATION 

IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The figures presented in the earlier chapters of this report relate entirely 
to tax-supported public education. In this chapter an estimate is pre¬ 
sented of the total cost of all education in the state, including the cost of 
those institutions which receive no support from the public treasury. 
Estimates are also given regarding the cost involved in the acceptance of 
certain higher standards, and the probable growth of the aggregate cost of 
education in the years lying immediately ahead. 

Aggregate Cost of All Education in the State in 1921. — The option 
which exists of stating aggregate costs in terms of cash disbursements or in 
terms of annual accrued economic cost has already been discussed in Chap¬ 
ter III (pp. 31-36). The following estimate of aggregate cost of edu¬ 
cation in the state for the year 1921 is in terms of the accrued economic 
cost for that year, which means that “ money’s worth used up” dur¬ 
ing the year rather than mere cash disbursements is the basis of the 
computation: 

The Public School System: 

1. Cash disbursements for current expenses . . . $148,115,510 

2. Cash disbursements for interest on outstanding 

indebtedness. 6,578,355 

3. Imputed interest on money invested in plant 2 not 

accounted for by interest on outstanding in¬ 
debtedness . 6,930,724 3 

4. Estimated depreciation on buildings and equip¬ 

ment . 6,127,870 4 

$167,752,459 

1 Includes tax-supported institutions of higher education. 

2 As used in this chapter "plant” includes sites, buildings, and equipment, unless otherwise specified. 

3 This figure represents the total imputed interest charge on the public school plant minus the cash 
disbursements for interest. The rate used in the calculation of imputed interest was 4.54 per cent. For 
the manner in which this rate was calculated see Chapter V, pages 87-88. 

i The technique used in determining depreciation is fully explained in Chapter V, pages 82-87. 

116 






PRESENT AND FUTURE EDUCATIONAL COSTS 


117 


Private and Parochial Elementary and Secondary Schools : 

1. Estimated current expenses 1 . 

2. Imputed interest on investment in plant 2 . . . 

3. Estimated depreciation on buildings and equip¬ 

ment . 


Non-Tax-Supported Institutions of Higher Education: 

1. Cash disbursements for current expenses . . . 

2. Imputed interest on investment in plant . . . 

3. Estimated depreciation on buildings and equip¬ 

ment 3 . 

$23,821,345 

Total. $219,735,714 4 

Of the total of $219,735,714 here arrived at, 80 per cent represents actual 
dollars paid out and only 20 per cent rests on estimates. 

The foregoing figures may be grouped as follows: 


Current expenses.$193,056,250 

Interest (including imputed). 18,500,506 

Depreciation. 8,178,958 

Total.$219,735,714 


It should be noted that a portion of the current expenses amounting to 12.7 
per cent is estimated. If one should substitute interest actually paid for the 
interest figure of $18,500,506 given above (which includes imputed interest 
on owned plant) and should substitute new capital outlay during the year for 
the depreciation figure, as given above, the calculation would be changed 
thereby from the accrued economic-cost basis to a cash-disbursement basis. 

1 A study was made of the attendance of private and parochial schools, partly from reports which were 
furnished to the Inquiry, and partly by checking these figures with a careful study of the total number of 
children attending school, as shown by the Census, in relation to the number attending public schools. 
An assumption was made that the average daily attendance in private and parochial schools bore the same 
relationship to the number enrolled as does the average daily attendance in public schools to their enrolment. 
The estimates showed 289,500 children enrolled in elementary schools, and 33,500 pupils enrolled in 
secondary schools conducted under private auspices. Correcting these figures to average daily attendance, 
it is estimated that the average daily attendance in private and parochial elementary schools is 231,600, and 
26,800 in secondary schools. Applying a charge of $89 per pupil in average daily attendance for elementary 
schools and $147 per pupil in average daily attendance in secondary schools (the cost figures for public 
schools) the estimated economic charge against the people of the State of New York for the current expenses 
for private and parochial schools is estimated to be $24,552,000. Of this amount $20,612,400 is the esti¬ 
mated charge for elementary schools, and $3,939,600 the estimated charge for schools of secondary grade. 

2 It is estimated that the investment in plant and equipment is as much per pupil in average daily at¬ 
tendance in private and parochial as for pupils in public schools. 

3 This calculation is made by assuming that of the total value of the plant, 21 per cent should be charged 
to sites, 71 per cent to buildings, and 8 per cent to equipment. This is the ratio found for sites, buildings, 
and equipment for tax-supported schools when an average for twelve years is taken. Depreciation on build¬ 
ings is figured at 2 per cent annually and on equipment, 5 per cent annually. On this basis the estimate 
allowed for depreciation on buildings is $765,196 and on equipment, $215,558. 

4 The annual plant charge against the resources of the community is indicated by the three items: 

(1) interest on indebtedness, (2) imputed interest on total capital invested in the school plant minus the 
interest paid during the year on money owed on it, (3) an annual charge for the depreciation of the plant. 
This does not take account of the increase which must be expected in all of these charges due to larger 
enrolment or other expansion of the school system. The demand of the schools for large amounts of capital 
each year must be met out of the capital fund available, but this amount is not properly considered as an 
annual charge. The interest and depreciation charges measure more satisfactorily the annual cost to the 
community. 


$24,552,000 

2,539,566 

1,070,344 

$28,161,910 

20,388,740 

2,451,861 

980,744 














118 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


Estimated Costs Involved in the Enforcement of Legal Requirements 
and the Acceptance of Higher Standards. — If certain commonly-accepted 
standards were to be made to prevail throughout the State of New York, 
and if certain legal requirements were to be fully enforced, additional 
charges would have to be met in support of the public school system. 
For example: 

1. If trained teachers were provided for all the schools of the state, 
and if a sufficient number to supply this requirement were graduated from 
the state schools for the training of teachers each year, the additional 
charge for the training of these teachers would amount to $1,983,519 per 
year, 1 for current expenses only. 

2. If the continuation school law were fully in effect, 2 it is estimated 
that there would be 196,147 students in attendance upon these courses. 
Assuming an average attendance of four hours a week, which is the min¬ 
imum required by law, and forty weeks in the school year, and assuming a 
cost of 15 cents per hour, 3 a total estimated cost for the maintenance of 
continuation schools of $4,707,528 is arrived at. 

3. If kindergartens were established in cities and villages, not now pro¬ 
viding this type of education, excluding rural areas, and if children at¬ 
tended these kindergartens in the same ratio to enrolment as in systems 
maintaining kindergartens, it is estimated that the additional cost to the 
people of the State of New York would amount to $254,230. This does 
not express the possible increase in current expenditure for kindergartens 
were they provided for all children of kindergarten age. It is probably 
true that, in all of the communities maintaining kindergartens, the at¬ 
tendance would be much larger were more kindergartens maintained. 
Any material increase in attendance would, of course, necessitate additional 
expenditures for new buildings. 

4. If the compulsory school age were extended downward to include all 
children six years of age and over, the additional current expense would 
be approximately $1,800,000. In villages of under 4,500 inhabitants, and 
in rural schools, the compulsory age begins at eight; in the larger communi¬ 
ties at the seventh year. By taking the number of children now in at¬ 
tendance of the first compulsory age group (that is, eight years of age in 
places having 4,500 inhabitants or over, and seven years in others), and 
by assuming that if the compulsory law included children of the lower age 
groups, at least as many more would be enrolled and schools for them 
would cost about as much as for the older children, it appears that to 

1 Standard training for elementary school teachers is assumed to consist of high school graduation plus 
two years of professional training. For high school teachers, standard training is assumed to involve 
college graduation, preferably including special professional training as a part of the four-year course. This 
estimate is based upon a calculation which shows the average teaching life of the graduate of a normal school 
to be 10.5 years, and of a graduate of the schools preparing secondary school teachers to be 7.15 years. 

2 This law goes into full effect in 1925. 

3 This estimate seems reasonable in the light of the evening school costs presented on pages 67-70. 


PRESENT AND FUTURE EDUCATIONAL COSTS 


119 


extend the compulsory school age to include children six years old would 
involve an additional current expenditure of $1,770,230. 

5. A capital outlay charge should be added to these estimated increases 
which would be involved in providing adequate school accommodations 
for all children within the state. In the City of New York, on December 
31,1922, there were 355,162 pupils on double session, or short time. If, for 
the moment, it be granted that the buildings in which these children are 
housed are suitable for the purpose for which they are now being used, a 
full day’s session for all of these children would require, even though half 
of the children be permitted to continue use of the old buildings, that new 
space be provided for the remaining half — or 177,581 pupils. It is esti¬ 
mated that in the City of New York there are in the over-size classes 47,805 
children, accepting forty children per class as a standard. If this standard 
were to be maintained, new accommodations would have to be provided 
for these children. If accommodations were provided for 177,581 plus 
47,805 or 225,386 children at $500 per pupil, the capital outlay necessary 
would amount to $112,693,000. If this money were obtained by issuing 
4.5 per cent bonds, the interest charge necessary to carry this capital out¬ 
lay would amount to $5,071,185 per annum. Counting the life of these 
buildings as 75 years, there would be a yearly depreciation charge of of 
the entire estimated capital outlay, or $1,502,573. For both interest and 
depreciation the total annual charge for the City of New York would be 
$6,573,758. 

The communities outside of the City of New York have approximately 
70 per cent as much invested in buildings as has the City of New York. 
If the need for new buildings to accommodate children on part time and in 
over-size classes is figured as 70 per cent of the $112,693,000, estimated as 
required to supply the City of New York in this regard, the charge for 
new structures outside of the City of New York would amount to $78- 
885,100. Charging 4.5 per cent interest for this capital investment re¬ 
quired, and estimating the life of the buildings to be 75 years, with a yearly 
depreciation charge of of the entire estimated capital outlay, gives an 
estimated charge, to provide facilities for the state outside of the City of 
New York, which amounts to $4,601,631. * 

This estimated cost is probably too low, rather than too high, since, in 
practically all of the communities throughout the state, buildings are now 
in use which should be abandoned and replaced by more adequate school 
accommodations. This estimated annual charge for additional plant for 
the entire state, including the City of New York, totals $11,175,3894 

To recapitulate, were fully equipped teachers to be provided, the con¬ 
tinuation school law to be fully in effect, kindergartens more commonly 
established, all children of six years of age enrolled in schools, and school 

1 This does not include sites. 


120 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


buildings erected to accommodate the children now on part time and those 
in over-size classes, the estimated annual increase in costs to be met by 


taxation would be as follows : 

1. Annual current expense for the training of teachers to replace those 

who quit the service in 1921, assuming all who enter have standard 

training.$ 2,212,090 

2. Annual increase in current expenses for trained teachers over sal¬ 

ary paid to those not having standard training. 1,293,600 1 

3. Annual interest charged on capital outlay necessary to provide in¬ 

creased accommodations in institutions for the training of teachers 172,800 4 

4. Annual depreciation charges on account of these buildings 2 . . . 51,200 

5. Annual estimated current expenses of continuation schools were the 

law fully in effect 3 . . . .. 4,707,528 

6. Annual estimated increase were kindergartens more commonly pro¬ 

vided . 254,230 

7. Annual estimated increase in current expenses were all children of 

six years of age enrolled in school. 1,770,230 

8. Annual charge required to carry increased accommodations needed 

for part-time and over-size classes . 11,175,389 4 

Total.$21,637,067 


In making these estimates it is assumed that population will increase. 
There is also an assumption that, as has been true in the past, special 
types of education will be introduced, or special activities added to the 
present program. Increases in expenditures during the past twelve years 
are partly accounted for by legislation which has required evening 
schools and continuation classes, medical inspection, physical education, 
and the like. 

Estimates of Probable Future Increases in Costs 

In arriving at a defensible estimate of the cost of public education in the 
State of New York during the next few years, it seemed best to be guided 
by the cash disbursement figures determined for the thirteen years from 
1910-1922. The study has not included data for years previous to 1909. 
The technique of arriving at these estimates is shown graphically in Dia¬ 
gram 7. 

The total cash disbursements for each of these thirteen years are plotted 
on the diagram. Then the straight line which best fitted this series of 

1 This figure is arrived at by taking the number of trained teachers replacing those with less than standard 
training, and multiplying by the difference in the middle-case salary now received by those in the two groups. 

2 It is estimated in determining the charge on account of capital outlay and depreciation that increased 
accommodations would cost $750 per pupil. Allowance was made for the fact that considerable numbers 
of pupils enter but do not graduate. These figures were secured by taking the enrolments of normal 
schools and the state teachers’ college as a basis for determining the number that would have to be enrolled 
in order to provide a given number of graduates. 

3 In arriving at the number of persons who would be compelled to attend continuation schools, data were 
available for the number in each age group affected, and from school enrolment figures for both public and 
private schools. A further correction for those not competent to receive such instruction was made. 

4 Not including sites. 









MILLIONS _ 4 

OF DOLLARS ANNUAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS, 1910-1922, AND ESTIMATED ANNUAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS, 

1922-1930 — for Public Education — State of New York 





































122 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


points was plotted and projected across the diagram to be used as a basis 
for estimating probable future disbursements. 1 

It is noted that the disbursements for the first three years of the period 
fall above the “ line of best fit,” that throughout the period from 1915 to 
1920 the disbursements are distinctly below this line, but in 1921 and in 
1922 are noticeably above the line. 

During the years 1915-1920 little building was done and as a consequence 
the school systems of the state actually ran behind in providing school 
accommodations for their children. There was a revival of building in 
1921-1922 with a corresponding increase in cash disbursements. It is 
probable that expenditures for buildings will continue to increase some¬ 
what during the next few years. It is a fair assumption, however, that the 
actual cash disbursements over the period of years just ahead will grad¬ 
ually return to the “ line of best fit.” 

Following the curve as plotted in terms of cash disbursements actually 
made, it seems reasonable to expect that this curve will approach or meet 
the “ line of best fit ” not later than 1930. On the basis of this assumption 
the dotted line is drawn. The cash disbursements for 1925 and for 1930 
as located on this dotted line are $207,400,000 and $226,400,000 respectively. 
These figures give the best estimate that can be made with the data that 
are available. Of course no one would deny the possibility of greater 
increases in disbursements than these here estimated. It is best, however, 
to make estimates based on known facts. 

The total annual accrued economic cost to the people of the State of 
New York for the maintenance of all schools, tax-supported and non-tax- 
supported, exceeded in 1921 the cash disbursements for tax-supported 
schools by $44,255,711. If this amount is added to the estimated cash 
disbursements, a total accrued economic cost for all schools, tax-supported 
and non-tax-supported, of $251,655,711 for 1925, and $270,655,711 for 
1930, is found. It is also estimated on page 120 that the enforcement 
of certain legal requirements and the acceptance of certain high standards 
would involve an annual charge of $21,637,067. 2 If this additional charge 
is added, the estimated totals for 1925 and 1930 become $273,292,778 and 

1 The “line of best fit” is known in statistics as a regression line. It is determined by the formula — 

S. D.i 

Xl ns S. D.j X * 

in which xi is the deviation in millions of dollars for the average disbursements for the thirteen years, x 2 is 
the years of deviation from the middle year of this period, m is the correlation coefficient between the 
disbursements and the dates, and the S. D.i and S. D. 2 are the respective standard deviations of the dis¬ 
tributions of expenditures and dates. 

2 It is to be noted that the estimated increases in expenditures, calculated upon the basis of cash dis¬ 
bursements, do not include increases in expenditure which maybe involved, if certain standards are accepted 
and carried into effect. On the other hand, the estimates on the basis of cash disbursements indicated by the 
“line of best fit” do allow for increases in population and for the growth of the number of those availing 
themselves of school facilities. For example, increases in high school attendance are allowed for in the 
estimated increases in cash disbursements, while the adoption of a kindergarten program more generally 
throughout the state is added as a special possible increase in expenditure in this separate item of $21,637,067. 



PRESENT AND FUTURE EDUCATIONAL COSTS 


123 


$292,292,778 respectively. These estimates assume that the difference 
between the disbursements as estimated for tax-supported schools, and 
the annual accrued economic cost for all schools maintained within the 
state, will remain constant. If for any reason the annual accrued economic 
cost for the non-tax-supported schools should increase at the same rate 
that the disbursements for tax-supported schools increase, these estimates 
would be too low. 





PART TWO 


RESOURCES FOR MEETING THE PROGRAM 




CHAPTER IX 


ECONOMIC RESOURCES OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COMPARED 

WITH EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES 

Part One of this report culminates in an estimate which represents the 
best judgment of the Commission as to the size of the probable financial 
demands of public education in the State of New York in the years which lie 
immediately ahead. In connection with the establishment of this estimate 
certain facts have been presented bearing upon, first, the precise character 
of the financial program; second, the amounts which are actually being 
spent for education, classified so as to show in some detail where the money 
is going; and third, the manner in which this money is being raised. 

As has been said above, 1 the Commission is committed to attempt more 
than this. So far as the means at its disposal and the character of the 
problem permit, it must study the resources and limitations which sur¬ 
round and underlie the proposal to dedicate a sum of such proportions to 
the purposes of public education. 

The size of public expenditures in general, and of educational expendi¬ 
tures in particular, has recently evoked much public comment. Some of 
this comment has taken the form of definite predictions of economic dis¬ 
aster. It is not, of course, within the province of this Commission to sug¬ 
gest how much the State of New York can afford to spend for education or 
for other public purposes. All it can properly undertake is to analyze the 
problem resulting from the public expenditure of these large and growing 
sums. Such an analysis is here attempted, in the hope that it may throw 
light upon the true character of the limitations which are becoming so 
painfully apparent in many parts of the state. 

What a state can spend for education depends upon many factors. But 
there are six very important factors that should be set forth : 

1. The first and foremost is the state’s economic strength and vigor, 
since a rich and thriving community is able to afford more of everything 
than a poor and decadent one. 

2. It depends upon the disposition of the people of the state toward 
the fruits of the educational process. A community which values educa¬ 
tion highly will spend a larger share of its economic resources to obtain it 
than will be spent by a second, equally strong community, which places 
education lower in its scale of values. 

i See pp. 120-124. 

127 


128 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


3. Again, what the state can afford to spend for education may be af¬ 
fected by the manner in which the state is districted and the manner in 
which educational functions are distributed. Clearly, if the state is di¬ 
vided into very small districts, which are required to perform all the func¬ 
tions connected with educating their youth, and to meet the entire cost 
from resources within their boundaries, the resources in the poor districts 
may be strained to the limit to provide a meager educational offering, 
while the rich districts may be able to finance an elaborate program with¬ 
out perceptible effort. On the other hand, a complete pooling of all the 
economic resources of the state, in support of a state-wide program, might 
enable the state to spend a much larger aggregate sum for educational 
purposes in less favored communities, and thereby more nearly equalize 
the burden of support than would be possible under a localized, small- 
district organization of the educational system where the burden of sup¬ 
port even in adjoining districts or counties may be greatly unequal. 

4. In the fourth place, if the revenue system of the state be so crudely 
devised, or so faultily administered, that an increase in taxes results in serious 
injustices and friction, the tax system itself may be a limiting factor even 
though economic resources be adequate and the desire for education strong. 

5. Another factor which may affect the problem is the confidence which 
the community has in the skill with which the school system is organized 
and administered. A conviction, just or unjust, that educational funds 
are being wasted or mismanaged may serve to prevent a community from 
sanctioning an educational program which it very much desires and could 
well afford to support. On the other hand, a school that commands the 
interest of the community and is a center of inspiration to adults, as well as 
to children, in building a better and more productive community will 
be supported more willingly. 

6. Finally, the limiting factor may be a weakness in the governmental 
arrangement for interpreting the desires of the community with respect 
to the educational program. It is important that the mechanism by which 
the community registers its decisions as to what it really wants in edu¬ 
cation should be made as perfect as possible. 

These six factors are perhaps the most important in determining the 
amount which the state can spend for education. The remaining pages in 
this report will be devoted to a discussion of some of these factors with 
special reference to the situation existing in the State of New York. 
The object is to make a diagnosis rather than to write a prescription or to 
formulate a program of action. 

Turning first to the economic aspects of the situation, the rest of this 
chapter presents the most important facts regarding the economic re¬ 
sources of the State of New York, and compares the growth of these re¬ 
sources in recent years with the growth of expenditures for public educa- 


ECONOMIC RESOURCES AND EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES 129 


tion. The specific question it seeks to answer is whether these expend¬ 
itures are absorbing a larger proportion of the community’s resources and 
effort than was formerly the case. 

Economic Resources in the State of New York, 1910-1922. — The diffi¬ 
culties of measuring economic resources in the State of New York are 
obvious. Two of the most commonly used indices are aggregate wealth 
and income, but it should be borne in mind that wealth and income are 
used as separate and distinct measures of economic resources. It should 
not be inferred that the income is to be added to wealth to secure a re¬ 
sultant representative of resources. Unfortunately, except for real estate 
values, satisfactory data relating to the wealth of the State of New York 
are entirely lacking and the figures representing the income of the people of 
the state are merely careful estimates. 1 

The only comprehensive appraisal of the wealth of the state is that of 
the federal census, the state itself making no attempt at a general valua¬ 
tion of property. 2 The results of the federal census of wealth are almost 
entirely worthless for purposes of this study, 3 except to show roughly the 

1 The phrases “wealth of the State of New York” and “income of the people of the state” are used 
deliberately in order to emphasize the basis upon which the figures rest. The appraisals of wealth, as, for 
example, that of the federal census, present estimates of the value of tangible property lying within the 
boundaries of the state. The income figures, on the other hand, represent the income accruing to 
the people domiciled within the borders of a state, irrespective of the jurisdictions in which the in¬ 
come actually arises. This is a distinction which lies at the root of the legal rules of situs (location) 
which control the attempts of a state to utilize wealth and income as subjects of taxation. The or¬ 
dinary rule of situs, governing the taxability of property, may be roughly stated thus: that tangible 
property takes its situs for tax purposes from its physical location and that intangible property follows 
the person of the owner. In other words, a state has the power to tax tangible property lying within its 
borders, irrespective of whether such property is owned by residents or non-residents, and a state may tax 
the intangible property of its residents, irrespective of whether such property is included within its borders 
or not. It is clear that to count as the total wealth of the state the sum of all tangible property within its 
borders, and all of the intangible property of its residents, irrespective of its location, would involve in the 
aggregate a large amount of double counting, because of the fact that intangible property, such as bonds, 
mortgages, etc., which are evidences of wealth rather than the wealth itself, represents, in large measure, 
claims to tangible property. 

The various states in elaborating their property tax systems, under the rules of situs outlined above, have 
become involved in a serious problem of double taxation, many states attempting to tax all intangible prop¬ 
erty owned by residents of the state as well as all tangible property located within their borders, with vary¬ 
ing and often inadequate provision for deduction of debts. The recent developments in the direction of 
state tax reform have included measures for correcting this situation by restricting the property tax to 
tangible property and substituting state income taxes for the old taxes on intangible personalty. 

A state imposing a tax upon personal income may tax the total income received from the individuals 
resident within the state, irrespective of the location of the sources of such income; the rule following that 
of the intangible property tax. A state also has the legal right to tax business income arising from business 
carried on within its borders, and, in increasing numbers, states are introducing taxes based upon business 
income which follow this rule of allocation. 

Theoretically it would be possible to obtain a figure which would represent the wealth of the people of 
the State of New York, but this would involve an appraisal which would, by individuals, list the value of 
their assets and liabilities, irrespective of their physical location, and arrive at a figure of net worth. An 
aggregation of these net-worth items would give a figure of interest and significance, but the statistics are 
not gathered in a form which makes possible the presentation of such a figure. 

2 As has been explained above (p. 108) the tax system has been so changed as to avoid almost completely 
the necessity of valuing any property except real estate. 

3 The only figures at present available relate to the year 1912, and corresponding figures for 1922 will not 
be available before 1924. Consequently it is impossible to secure from this source a picture which is at all 
representative of present conditions or present trends in the state. Even if the 1922 figures were available, 


130 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


relative importance of real estate values. The federal figures indicate that 
in 1912, real property accounted for 16.9 billions out of a total valuation 
of 25 billions of dollars, or more than two-thirds of the total wealth in the 
state. But, even though real estate values be the most important single 
element of wealth, and though they are used in this study as a measure of 
wealth, it by no means follows that their rate of increase measures accu¬ 
rately the increase of wealth in general. Indeed, there are certain facts 
which render it extremely probable that economic resources have increased 
at a considerably faster rate during the period than would be indicated by 
the rise in real estate values from eleven to seventeen billions. 

In the first place during this period there was a large increase in the bur¬ 
den of taxation on real estate, the tax per $1,000 of full value in 1921 being 
nearly 50 per cent greater than it had been in 1911. 1 Since a large portion 
of the 16 billions of real estate value consists of land values 2 which tend 
to diminish as the rate of tax increases, it may be concluded that the figure 
of full value of real estate should be revised upward, if it were to be accepted 
as a true index of the trend of the growth of economic resources of the 
state. 

Moreover, since the valuation of land is an appraisal which involves the 
use of an interest rate, it becomes important to take into account the varia¬ 
tions in that rate. During the period under consideration there has been 
a distinct upward movement of interest rates which would tend to depress 
land values, as well as other property values, and render a comparison of 
present values with those of a decade ago even less representative of the 
real growth of the economic strength of the community than they would 
otherwise be. 3 

On the other hand, the retardation in the normal rate of construction 
during the war and the high cost of building which has recently obtained 
have been forces operating to appreciate the value of existing improve¬ 
ments. Forces such as these cannot be accurately measured, but they 


it would not be possible, in the opinion of competent students of the problem, to attach any high degree of 
significance to them because of the known difficulties of appraisal and the only approximate success which 
the census has been able to achieve in carrying through the work. 

1 The taxes per $1,000 of real estate value (full value) have varied during these years as follows: 


1911 $17.23 1915.$17.08 1919.$21.07 

1912 19.06 1916 18.13 1920 21.74 

1913 17.33 1917 18.60 1921 25.60 

1914 20.96 191S.19.88 


2 In the generally accepted economic analysis the value of land is determined by the present value of the 
expected future net income arising from the possession of such land and a tax placed upon the land and 
coming from the land rent would not be shifted forward, but would be borne by the owner of the land, the 
net result being a diminution in the selling value of the land to the extent that the increased tax diminished 
the prospect for future net income. It is, of course, impossible to say what the expectation was in 1910, 
which resulted in the valuations of the property obtained at that time. It is scarcely possible, however, 
that a 50 per cent increase in the tax rate was anticipated by real estate owners of that day. 

3 For example, the interest rate on new issues of long-term school bonds in the State of New York averages 
4.2 per cent during the six-year period, 1910-1915, and 4.5 per cent during the period 1916-1921. See 
p. 89. 













ECONOMIC RESOURCES AND EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES 131 


should be borne in mind in considering the validity of the real estate values 
as indices of economic resources. With all their shortcomings these fig¬ 
ures are the most significant and valuable measure of wealth of the state 
at present available. 

The real estate values shown in Table 42 represent full market value 
and are believed to be fairly accurate. They consist of assessments made 
by local tax officers, as revised by the equalization rates of the State Tax 
Commission. These equalization rates are based upon elaborate field 
investigations regarding the correctness of assessments, which involve 
comparisons of the assessed values with the true prices, as given in re¬ 
corded deeds in real estate transfers. 

Only taxable real estate is included in the figures as presented. In ad¬ 
dition there are large quantities of real estate owned publicly or by re¬ 
ligious, charitable, educational, and similar institutions which are exempt by 
law from taxation. In 1921 such property was valued at $3,285,077,891. 1 

If the figures were available, it would be of interest to subdivide them 
so as to show what portion of the increase from 11 to 17 billions of dollars 
was due to increases in land values and what portion to an increase in 
the value of improvements. The figures for the City of New York alone 
show that between 1910 and 1922 more than two-thirds of the increase in 
real estate values was due to increases in building values and less than one- 
third to increases in land values. 2 

The income figures in the table rest largely upon the estimates of the 
National Bureau of Economic Research. 3 They were obtained by as- 

1 Report of State Tax Commission, 1921, p. 21. It should be noted that this property yields a valuable 
return to the community even though that return be not valued explicitly in dollars. 

2 This statement is based on the following unequalized assessments of the City of New York, excluding 
real estate of corporations and the value of franchises: 



1910 

1922 

Increase 

Land. 

Improvements. 

Total. 

$4,001,129,651 

2,490,206,348 

$6,491,335,999 

$4,976,001,082 

4,565,004,738 

$9,541,005,820 

$ 974,871,431 
2,074,798,390 
$3,049,669,821 


3 In the estimates of the Bureau “the national income is taken to consist of the commodities and services 
produced by the people of the country or obtained from abroad for their use, with the omission of goods for 
which no price is commonly paid, for example the services of housewives. Agricultural produce consumed 
by the families that produce it, mainly food and firewood, is included, and so also is the rental value of 
homes occupied by their owners. Finally income is reckoned on a net basis, that is, negative income, main¬ 
tenance, and depreciation charges are deducted, but not ‘extensions and betterments . Income in the 
United States,” p. 42. 

It should be observed that in making these estimates every activity of the people for which money was 
paid was deemed to produoe income equal to its cost irrespective of the character of the activity. Thus 
services of household servants and of professional men, such as doctors, clergymen, lawyers, actors, etc., 
and services of government, such as the maintenance of the army and navy, police, fire and health depart¬ 
ments, and public education, all were deemed to constitute income equal to their cost. Money received 
as interest on national, state, and municipal obligations was not included, as such payments, in effect, are 
made by the people collectively to part of the people and therefore do not increase the collective income of 

the people. . . .. , . 

The work of the Bureau supplies a much more trustworthy approximation of the national income than 
























132 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


TABLE 42 

FULL VALUE OF TAXABLE REAL ESTATE IN THE STATE OF 
NEW YORK AND ESTIMATED INCOME OF THE PEOPLE 
OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 1910-1922 


Year 1 

Full Value of Taxable 

Real Estate 2 

Income of the People of 
the State of New York 

Amount 
in billions 

Index showing 
increase based 
on 1910 3 

Amount 
in billions 1 

Index showing 
increase based 
on 1910 

1910 

$10.8 

100 

$3.9 

100 

1911 

11.0 

102.2 

4.3 

110.2 

1912 

12.0 

111.9 

4.3 

110.2 

1913 

12.3 

114.0 

4.5 

115.4 

1914 

12.8 

118.7 

4.7 

120.5 

1915 

12.9 

120.0 

4.5 

115.4 

1916 

13.2 

122.9 

4.9 

125.6 

1917 

13.7 

127.2 

6.8 

174.4 

1918 

13.9 

129.6 

7.4 

189.7 

1919 

14.4 

133.4 

8.4 

215.4 

1920 

14.7 

136.6 

9.1 

233.3 

1921 

16.4 

152.4 

9.9 

253.8 

1922 

17.3 

161.2 

7.5 

192.3 


1 In general, the figures presented in this portion of the report relate to the year ending during the fiscal 
year August 1 to July 31. The income figures are for calendar years ending during these school years. 

2 These figures include the value of the special franchises of public service corporations which are legally 
classified as real estate. The comparative importance of this element may be judged from the following 
figures, which represent the ratio of franchise values to total real estate valuations: 


1910.5.8% 1916.4.4% 

1912.5.1 1918.5.0 

1914 . 5.0 1920 . 4.5 

1921.4.1 


Public utility franchises in the State of New York tend to be overvalued, rather than undervalued. 

3 These index numbers were calculated upon the basis of the complete figures of real estate values. In 
the preceding column the figures have been carried only to the nearest hundred thousand. 


signing to the State of New York each year the same proportion of the 
total income of the country for that year as the income of the people of 
the state was found to bear to the total income of the country during the 

has hitherto been available. The following figures represent its final estimates of the income of the country 
as a whole for the calendar years 1909-1918 (in billions of dollars): 


1909 .$28.8 1913.$34.4 1917.$53.9 

1910 .31.4 1914.33.2 1918.61.0 

1911 31.2 1915.36.0 

1912 33.0 1916 45.4 


In addition the Bureau has published an estimate for the year 1919 which places the total income of the 
country at 66.3 billions ("Distribution of Income by States in 1919,” p. 25). Later data would appear to 
indicate that this figure may be as much as 66.8 billions. 

The Bureau has published no formal estimates for the years 1920 and 1921. Tentative approximations 
are available, however, from sources believed to be fairly dependable. Those adopted for the purposes 
of the table are 72.5 billions for 1920 and 55.0 billions for 1921. The estimates from the second source do 
not differ much from these, the figures being 71.0 billions for 1920 and 56.0 billions for 1921. 



































n 

ib 

15 

i ^ 

13 

!% 

1 1 

10 

ft 

7 

6 

5 

3 

2 

I 

0 


RESOURCES AND EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES 133 


DIAGRAM 8 

ons in Full Value of Taxable Real Estate, Total Income of the 
People of the State, and Total Cash Disbursements for 
Public Education — State of New York, 1910-1922 

Based on Tables 4 and 42 




IS COM2 


30300 1* MBTOITPRE _ 

.^—r- 

Hll M/2 m3 WIH M/5 MU MIT MIS MM M20 M2I 1122 





134 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


calendar year 1919, when the Bureau attempted a distribution of the na¬ 
tional income among the states. The assumption that New York’s share 
in the national income has remained constant during the period under view 
appears to be a fairly reasonable one. 1 

Table 42 shows for the thirteen years from 1910 through 1922 the 
full value of taxable real estate in the State of New York, and the 
annual income of the people living in the state. Figures are given in 
billions of dollars. The table shows that real estate values have risen 
gradually and regularly from 10.8 billions of dollars in 1910 to 17.3 
billions of dollars in 1922. During the same period the income of the 
people living in the state rose from 3.9 billions of dollars in 1910 to 9.9 
billions in 1921, dropping to 7.5 billions in 1922. That is, real estate 
values increased slightly more than 60 per cent, while income increased 
over 90 per cent. 

Cash Disbursements for Public Education Compared with Economic 
Resources, 1919-1920. — When the amounts spent for public schools are 
compared year by year with the available data representing economic re¬ 
sources, as is done in Diagrams 8 and 10, 2 it becomes evident that the cash 
disbursements have been growing at a more rapid rate than real estate values 
and income. In other words, public education is absorbing an increasingly 
large share of economic resources in the State of New York. One need go 
no further than this for an explanation of the complaints regarding the 
size of school expenditures which are so prevalent. Such a state of affairs 
involves economic readjustments, the character of which is discussed in 
the next chapter. 

When real estate values and income are compared with cash disburse¬ 
ments year by year the comparisons are valid because they are made in 
terms of dollars of like value. When, however, the comparisons are made 
between the years in the series the changes in prices enter to modify con¬ 
clusions which may properly be drawn. During this period, as is well 
known, prices fluctuated violently. 

Since a large proportion of educational expenditures are absorbed in 
teachers’ salaries, perhaps the most significant price index available is 
that shown in Diagram 9, which measures the variations in the cost of 
living of persons of moderate incomes during this period. This index was 

1 The computations of the Bureau assigned to the State of New York 9.1 billions out of a total national 
income of 66.3 billions, or 13.69 per cent. “ Distribution of Income by States in 1919,” p. 25. The figures 
presented in Table 42 represent 13.69 per cent of the estimated national income for each year of the period. 
That the assumption involved is not a violent one is shown by the fact that New York’s share of the total 
personal income subject to the federal income tax has remained fairly constant throughout the period for 
which trustworthy statistics are available. These percentages run as follows : 1917, 17.87 per cent; 1918, 
17.08 per cent; 1919, 17.30 per cent; and 1920, 16.99 per cent. The tendency toward decline in 1920 is 
ascribed by some students of the problem to the increase in investments in tax-exempt bonds by persons of 
large income in the State of New York. 

3 The data of Diagram 8 were taken from Table 40, p. 105, showing school costs, and Table 42, p. 132, 
showing state resources. 


aaa 

PB4 

820 

316 

81* 

808 

804 

800 

£•6 

£92 

888 

284 

aeo 

876 

m 

268 

264 

260 

266 

262 

248 

244 

240 

236 

232 

228 

224 

220 

216 

212 

208 

204 

200 

196 

192 

188 

184 

180 

176 

X72 

L4o 

164 

160 

156 

152 

146 

144 

140 

186 

132 

128 

124 

120 

116 

112 

108 

104 

100 

96 

92 

88 

84 

60 


RESOURCES AND EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES 135 


DIAGRAM 9 

Variations in the Level of Retail Prices Compared 
with the Variations in Cash Disbursements for 
Public Education—State of New York, 1910-1922 

Based on 1910 as 100, Using Data in Table 4 and 
Footnote 1, Page 136. 



i * i -1— 

1911 1912 1915 19M 


I I I J _L_ 

1915 1916 1917 191B 1»19 


I 

I960 


_J_I 

1921 192* 









136 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


prepared by Dr. W. I. King of the National Bureau of Economic Re¬ 
search. 1 


1 The following figures embrace not only the index mentioned above but also the Wholesale Price Index 
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the index numbers showing the variations in the cash disbursements 
for education in the State of New York 8hown graphically in Diagram 9. 


Year 

Retail Prices 

Wholesale Prices 

Cash Disbursements 
for Education 

1910 

100.00 

100 

100.0 

1911 

100.46 

92 

104.5 

1912 

101.73 

98 

115.4 

1913 

102.67 

99 

120.8 

1914 

104.94 

97 

135.2 

1915 

106.65 

100 

142.3 

1916 

110.56 

126 

134.4 

1917 

124.20 

175 

137.3 

1918 

147.53 

192 

150.6 

1919 

178.39 

204 

165.5 

1920 

206.68 

224 

196.8 

1921 

204.74 

146 

294.3 

1922 

178.45 

148 

328.8 


The basis used in computing the retail price index is explained by Dr. King as follows: 

‘The index numbers from 1914 to date are based upon the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. As 
you know that Bureau for most of the period reported only twice a year. The months between these reports 
have been interpolated on two bases. During the years 1916 to 1919 I depended upon the fluctuations 
of retail prices in South Carolina, as a guide to interpolation. Since the first of January, 1920, the National 
Industrial Conference Board has been presenting monthly figures, and the interpolation during this period 
has been made on the basis of their reports. Readings have been taken for each month, indices have then 
been totalled for the twelve months in each fiscal year, and the totals have been divided by twelve, to arrive 
at the index numbers desired. For the years preceding 1914, a series of indices have been computed on the 
basis of quotations obtained from numerous sources. 

‘Relative numbers on the base 1913 have been computed for the following items with the following 


weights: 

Ford automobiles. 232 

Books. 37 

Automobile tires. 106 

Clothing .1,662 

College rooms and board. 37 

College tuition. 7 

Diamonds. 39 

Food.3,824 

Fuel and light. 530 

Furs. 165 

Gasoline. 106 

House furnishings. 510 

Housing.1,344 

Hotel bills. H 3 

Magazines. 28 

Moving pictures. 130 

Newspapers. 124 

Railway passenger fares . 38 

Servants’ wages. 64 

Street car fares. 365 

Telephones. 68 

Theatre seats. 96 

Tobacco. 279 

Vaudeville seats. 96 

Total. 10,000 


These weights have been based largely upon the studies of the Bureau of Labor Statistics concerning 
the expenditures of families of the working class. Constant weights have been used throughout. Quota- 







































ECONOMIC RESOURCES AND EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES 137 


It must not be inferred that the line of educational expenditures should 
move in an identical manner with the price line. To expect it to do so 
would be to assume that the school money was expended for articles of 
like character and amount to those used in making up the index. For a 
very substantial portion of the expenditures, however, there was un¬ 
doubtedly a close correspondence. It is believed that the graph furnishes 
valuable data for qualifying the conclusions which might otherwise be 
drawn from the bare figures showing the increases in income and in school 
expenditures. 

TABLE 43 

CASH DISBURSEMENTS FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION COMPARED WITH 
REAL ESTATE VALUES AND ESTIMATED INCOME (ON BASIS OF 
THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN BETWEEN AGES OF 5 AND 17 
INCLUSIVE), STATE OF NEW YORK, 1910-1922 


Year 1 

Cash Disbursements 
for Public Education 
per Child 2 

Full Value of 
■Taxable Real Es¬ 
tate per Child 

Estimated Income of 
People of State 
per Child 


Amount 

Index 3 

Amount 

Index 

Amount 

Index 

1910 

$29.37 

100 

$5297 

100 

$1922 

100 

1911 

30.22 

103 

5334 

101 

2087 

109 

1912 

32.87 

112 

5758 

109 

2056 

107 

1913 

33.95 

116 

5778 

109 

2121 

110 

1914 

37.44 

127 

5934 

112 

2183 

114 

1915 

38.86 

132 

5915 

112 

2061 

107 

1916 

36.19 

123 

5970 

113 

2213 

115 

1917 

36.47 

124 

6097 

115 

3030 

158 

1918 

39.47 

134 

6128 

116 

3252 

169 

1919 

42.81 

146 

6224 

118 

3643 

190 

1920 

50.22 

171 

6288 

119 

3895 

203 

1921 

74.13 

252 

6927 

131 

4182 

218 

1922 

81.76 

278 

7233 

137 

3143 

164 


i The expenditure figures are for the school year ending July 31st. The income figures are for the cal¬ 
endar year and the land value figures for the assessment period ending during this school year. 

* See Table 4, p. 38. For a subdivision of the figures into current expenses, capital outlay, and interest 

payments, see pp. 30 and 33. 

3 Showing increase based on 1910. 

Another important factor in the cost of supplying education has been 
the increase in the number of children to be educated. The figures in Table 
43 and in Diagram 10 are obtained by dividing the various aggregates for 

tions have been obtained only for January 1st and July 1st of each year. The average figure for the year 
has been estimated by weighting the July 1st index 2 and the January 1st and December 31st indices 1 each 
dividing the sum by 4. The base is the fiscal year 1910, and has been computed in the manner gust men- 

“The Bureau of Labor Statistics indices have been converted to the 1910 base at the point where they 
lap over on the other indices, namely, the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1914. 

“The estimates for the earlier years are, of course, not as complete as those made by the Bureau o 
Labor Statistics, but they are believed to be as good as can be worked out with any reasonable amount of 

effort.” 























138 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


each year by the number of children in the state between the ages of 5 and 
17 years. The mere number of children in this age-group is one measure 
of the size of the educational task. Between 1910 and 1922 the number 
of such children increased from 2,030,193 to 2,397,673 or 18 per cent. 
Full account has been taken of this increase in the figures. 

Moreover, the number of children actually cared for by the public school 
system has increased much more rapidly than the mere number of children 
of school age. In 1910, 1,095,288 children were in average daily attendance 
at the public schools of the state. In 1922 the number had risen to 1,499,- 
803 or 37 per cent. A part of the increase in school expenditures is clearly 
due to this larger school attendance and is not taken fully into account 
when the aggregate cost is divided merely by the number of children of 
school age. 

The results shown in Table 43 indicate that for every dollar of real estate 
value back of each child of school age in the state in 1910, there was $1.37 
in real estate value in 1922. For every dollar of income back of each child 
of school age in 1910 there was $1.64 of income in 1922 ($2.18 in 1921). In 
this period each dollar disbursed for education in 1910 had increased to 
$2.78 in 1922. In other words, the expenditures for public education per 
child of school age have nearly trebled during a period when income has 
only doubled and real estate values have increased only 37 per cent. On 
this basis, school expenditures have increased nearly five times as rapidly 
as real estate values and more than twice as rapidly as the income of the 
people of the state. Clearly, so far as real estate values and aggregate 
income of the people of the state can be accepted as valid measures of 
economic resources, New York was devoting a larger share of its economic 
effort to the support of public education in 1922 than it did in 1910. 

It will be noted in Diagram 10 that the decline in cash disbursements for 
schools (per child of school age) in 1916 and 1917, due to the reduction in 
capital outlay because of the war, carried the line indicating the rate of 
increase below the income line. The income line itself rose rapidly, but 
the increase went, of course, to war purposes rather than to education. 
During the relatively normal period, 1912-1916, the figures show a tend¬ 
ency for educational costs to increase at a more rapid rate than income, 
and this situation is again established in 1921. 

Care must be taken, however, not to leave the impression that the in¬ 
creased expenditure per child of school age means merely an increased cost 
of an identical service. It represents an increased cost of an expanded 
service. During this period the public school system of the state has not 
only attracted and held in school 1 a larger portion of the children of school 

1 It should be noted also that the costs per pupil in the higher grades are larger than in the lower grades, 
so that a child held in school involves a greater expenditure than a new child entering school. In the state 

as a whole in 1910 one per cent of the population was in high school. In 1920 this figure had increased to 
1.64 per cent. 


*80 

*77 

274 

271 

269 

265 

1262 

259 

256 

253 

250 

247 

244 

241 

238 

235 

232 

229 

226 

223 

■220 

217 

214 

211 

208 

205 

202 

199 

196 

193 

190 

187 

184 

181 

178 

175 

172 

169 

166 

163 

160 

157 

154 

151 

148 

145 

142 

139 

136 

133 

130 

127 

124 

121 

116 

115 

112 

109 

1CT6 

103 

100 

I 97 

94 

01 

ee • 


>NOMIC RESOURCES AND EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES 139 


DIAGRAM 

Variations in Full Value of Real Estate, in In¬ 
come and in School Expenditure, per Child 
School Age — State of New York, 1910-1922 

Based on 1910 as 100, Using Data from Table 43 



1911 1912 1*18 1914 1918 


I I _1-1-1-1_I 

1016 1917 1918 1919 1920 19*1 198* 









140 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


age, but has expanded the program. By “program ” is implied not simply 
a more varied or elaborate curriculum, but additional services, such as 
transportation of pupils, improved administration, health service, kinder¬ 
gartens, vocational, and continuation schools. 

The data presented in the foregoing pages indicate that the expenditures 
for public education in the State of New York have increased since 1910 
at a more rapid rate than the economic resources of the state. Plainly a 
larger share of the total economic effort of the community is being devoted 
to the support of public schools than was the case at the beginning of the 
period. In the following chapter, some of the implications involved in 
such an increase of public expenditure for this purpose are discussed. 


CHAPTER X 


THE ECONOMIC LIMITATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES 

In Chapter IX it is shown that a larger share of the economic resources 
of the community is being devoted to the support of public education. To 
appraise the significance of this fact, it is necessary to understand clearly 
the role played by education in the economic life of the community. Cur¬ 
rent discussion shows that serious misconceptions exist both regarding the 
economic significance of the educational product and regarding the character 
of the economic limitations of educational support. Although the Commis¬ 
sion realizes that a complete treatment of these subjects would involve many 
chapters and many data which are unavailable, it feels, nevertheless, that a 
brief discussion may be of service in defining and clarifying the issues involved. 

The fundamental propositions which this chapter seeks to establish may 
be summarized thus: 

First , that educational activity, even though publicly administered and 
supported, is, in a very real sense, economically productive. 

Second , that to increase the support of public education means funda¬ 
mentally that the aggregate economic resources of the community must 
be increased, or that support must be diverted to education from some 
other object to which it is now devoted; that increased production is not 
always easy to accomplish; and that diversion always involves abstinence 
from objects formerly consumed and, often, because of the specialized 
character of economic resources, involves a degree of waste. 

The quantity of additional support for education which can be made 
available depends, on the one side, upon the strength of the community’s 
desire for what education has to offer, and the strength of its desire for 
alternative products, and on the other side upon the ease with which pro¬ 
ductivity may be increased or diversion effected. The fact that the commu¬ 
nity is increasing its support of public education is, in itself, no occasion 
for alarm, or for predictions of disaster. It is of the highest importance, 
however, that the community should realize what it is doing; that the 
decisions be purposeful and intelligent. 

The Character of the Educational Product 

No argument should be required to gain assent to the statement that 

the system of public education creates a certain valuable product. This 

141 


142 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


product is, of course, difficult to measure. 1 Obviously, also, it is not so 
perfect a product as is desired. Doubtless in some cases its cost is un¬ 
justifiably high. 

Granting all this, however, the fundamental fact of productivity re¬ 
mains. The system of education generates technical skill and increases 
productive capacity. It tends to raise the intellectual and moral standards 
of the people, and prepares them to participate intelligently in the govern¬ 
ment of the country. In recent years it has been effectively used to im¬ 
prove social qualities of great economic importance in such fields as health 
and thrift. Finally, it makes important contributions in cultivating 
powers of appreciation which determine the character of economic goods 
and services demanded and consumed by the community. 2 

It is an equipment of such powers and qualities which constitutes the 
educational product. The maintenance of this equipment is clearly a first 
claim upon economic resources. In any comprehensive social balance sheet 
the equipment possessed by the older generation, which has been produced 
as the result of past educational effort, must be credited as an asset. This 
equipment is subject to constant depletion and deterioration through age, 
disease, and death. Until this, or its equivalent, has been replaced, the 
community cannot in any true sense be said to have achieved any net in¬ 
come whatsoever. A community may live on its intellectual capital, and 
emerge at the end of a period intellectually bankrupt. 

Moreover, a growing community, especially if the community has a 
democratic form of government, is under compulsion to provide for exten¬ 
sions of the equipment, which is the product of education. 3 If the level of 
civilization is not to be lowered, sufficient resources must be devoted to 
education to provide this equipment for each new increment of population. 
The community’s balance sheet will show a gain here. The State of New 
York was presumably “ richer,” if in 1920 it had ten and a half millions 
of educated people than it was in 1910 with only nine millions. 4 However, 
unless the educational equipment of the entire population, including this 
increment of growth, is maintained at least at the level which obtained at 

1 Certain of the attempts which have been made in the past to measure the economic value of that prod¬ 
uct have been obviously faulty, as for example, those which compare the increased earning power of highly 
educated men with that of men who have received less educational training, without taking into account 
the point as to whether those who received the advanced training were not a select group as compared with 
those who did not, and similar questions. Here is a very difficult and complicated problem which it would 
probably be profitable to investigate in a scientific manner, but which this Commission has not had the 
opportunity to attack. See A. Caswell Ellis, “The Money Value of an Education,” United States 
Bureau of Education Bulletin 1917, No. 22. 

2 For example, it is a matter of the most profound economic significance whether a community prefers 
“plain living and high thinking” to high living and low thinking. 

3 This discussion, it should be noted, assumes an education which really has the effect implied. A mil¬ 
lion spent on schools does not necessarily mean a million spent on education. 

4 It should not be overlooked, however, that the cost of training the increment of one and a half million 
people is an expense which necessarily comes out of the net product of the period, and renders these re¬ 
sources unavailable for expenditure for other purposes. The more rapid the rate of growth of a community, 
the more serious is this draft upon its economic resources. 


ECONOMIC LIMITATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES 143 


the beginning of the period, no true net income can be said to have been 
achieved, because the menace of the uneducated increment would have 
to be brought to account as a very real liability. Thus the claim of the 
younger generation upon the older one assumes the character of a demand 
that if population is permitted to increase, the generation which is respon¬ 
sible shall, before devoting its resources to other purposes, provide for the 
integrity of the educational equipment necessary to maintain the civiliza¬ 
tion of the now more populous group at the old level at least. 

The community, then, must spend for education so much of its available 
economic resources as may be necessary to maintain the mental equipment 
of the population, even though the population be increasing in size. If it 
does not spend this much, civilization itself will decline. How much in 
addition it can devote to the support of education will doubtless depend 
in part upon the value placed upon the product which educational activity 
offers as compared with alternative activities; but it will depend chiefly 
and fundamentally upon the balance which the community can actually 
make available for education through thrift and efficiency, after the 
necessary maintenance costs of society and the necessary capital reserves 
have been provided for. Additional economic support cannot be provided 
merely by popular devotion to the cause of education or merely by popular 
sacrifices to that end. 

It is pertinent to observe at this point that in educational activities lies 
perhaps the highest hope of the race both for increasing its productivity 
and for rationalizing its consumption. Nothing is more wasteful than 
ignorance. On the side of production intelligence in labor and manage¬ 
ment makes for large output at low cost, and on the side of consumption 
intelligence makes for socially effective use of that product. A given edu¬ 
cational expenditure is of great economic significance, if it so transforms 
the scale of values of a rich young man that he secures greater satisfaction 
from some form of professional activity than from a life devoted to the 
pursuit of undisciplined desires, or so transforms the scale of values of a 
factory worker that he prefers to devote his leisure to intellectual pursuits, 
rather than to long evenings of mental inertia. 1 

From the point of view of ultimate effects upon the economic resources 
of the nation, the support of scientific research takes on all the glamour 
of a promising speculation, which, at relatively slight cost and risk, holds 
forth the possibility of undreamed-of expansions in productivity. 2 The 
justification of this statement rests on examples like the following: The 

1 The possible contribution of education to the problem of the more rational use of leisure time con¬ 
stitutes a promising field for an independent investigation. 

2 Moreover, in casting up the accounts, it is only fair to view the research situation in a very broad way 
and to ‘‘consolidate the accounts” of the various institutions. Thus the cost of a dozen agricultural ex¬ 
periment stations may be offset by a valuable contribution from a single worker in one of them. If it is 
necessary to offer technical training to a thousand mediocre men in order that the door of opportunity shall 
be open to the one genius who will make the great contribution, the expenditure may be justified. 


144 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


entire modern industrial system in its enormous capacity for production de¬ 
veloped from the epoch-making researches of Watt in Glasgow, and 
Faraday in the Royal Institution at London. In comparison with the 
fabulous increases in wealth and productive power that have resulted from 
these studies, the costs of the investigations themselves are totally negli¬ 
gible. According to Huxley, Pasteur’s discoveries for preventing anthrax, 
silkworm disease, and chicken cholera added annually to France’s wealth 
a sum equivalent to the entire indemnity of the war of 1870. One of the 
most valuable remedies known to medical science was discovered in a 
research institute at Frankfort, Germany, the annual income of which was 
not over $20,000 a year. No one can calculate accurately the added 
production likely to follow the recent discovery in a Canadian university 
of insulin and its possibilities for prolonging the lives of diabetics, many 
of whom are persons of ability and certain to “ produce,” if only they can 
be kept in health. The discoveries of a certain member of the faculty at 
Columbia University, under a conservative estimate, will add to the wealth 
of the country a sum larger than the entire cost of the university from its 
pre-revolutionary beginnings to the present. A new process for manu¬ 
facturing coke, discovered at the University of Illinois, may add more 
to the wealth of the state than the total appropriations which the state uni¬ 
versity is likely to receive in the next century. Much the same claim 
could be safely made for the Babcock milk test discovered at the University 
of Wisconsin. Instances of claiming to add millions to the wealth of a 
state by a few thousands spent on research in its agricultural experiment 
station are frequent. Among such instances, at least the following have 
a substantial basis of fact: Soil treatment, development of superior strains 
of grains, increased egg production, control of various plant diseases, sera 
for preventing diseases of farm animals, grasshopper control, and preven¬ 
tion of loss in stored grain from insects. 

Some of the activities with which public education competes for support 
are public and some are private in character. By virtue of its position as 
a public function, education suffers, with other public activities, from a 
misconception which appears to be widely imbedded in the public mind. 
Men often write and talk as if all public activity were mere waste, and as 
if the payment of taxes closely resembled the act of throwing money into 
the sea. This is indeed a superficial view. A tax in a modern democracy 
tends to approach a deliberate payment of an equitable amount toward 
the cost of certain desired objects and services which can be more efficiently 
supplied by collective rather than by individual action. 

It is true that the products of governmental activity often contribute 
indirectly rather than directly to the satisfaction of human wants, and 
often they are necessary only because of the frailties and shortcomings of 
human nature. Again, because of the character of the tax systems in vogue, 


ECONOMIC LIMITATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES 145 


benefits and tax burdens are often out of proportion. Finally, because of 
the shortcomings of public administration, costs in governmental under¬ 
takings are often high when judged by standards attained in private under¬ 
takings. Yet it is certainly true that, speaking broadly, economic resources 
are expended upon a collective enterprise under public authority because of 
a belief that, devoted to such a purpose, even with such standards of 
efficiency as actually obtain in the public service, the resources are more 
highly productive than if devoted to individual activities. Certainly 
activities cannot properly be labeled unproductive simply because they are 
carried on by a government rather than an individual. The economic 
character of the product is not fundamentally changed simply because it 
is produced by collective rather than by individual action. 

A second popular misconception is that which groups all public activi¬ 
ties together and considers them as a single claim upon economic resources 
which ranks below the claim of all private activities. If the various items 
of community consumption could be arranged on a scale indicating their 
order of importance, all of the individually-produced items would not ap¬ 
pear together at the top of the scale and all of the collectively-produced 
items at the bottom. On the contrary the two types of products would be 
intermingled. Collective protection of person and property might appear 
near the very top together with the first units of food, clothing, and shelter. 
All down the scale, governmental products would be found to be com¬ 
peting actively for position with individually-produced items. The process 
is not one of disposing of a rigidly fixed total of resources by first supplying 
all demands for individually-produced items and then allowing the various 
collectively-controlled services to scramble for what may be left. The 
scramble for resources at the margin is as likely to be between two private 
as between two public activities — between motion pictures and the theater 
as between motor-cycle policemen and school teachers. 

Economically sound decisions as to what things shall be done by the 
government and what shall be left to private enterprise must rest funda¬ 
mentally on the answer to the question as to which course of action will 
yield the greatest possible net product of want-satisfying goods and serv¬ 
ices. Since the conditions governing productivity are subject to con¬ 
stant change, the scope of public activity is also subject to constant change. 
The proper scope today is very different from that in the past — even the 
recent past — because of changing capacity for collective activity and 
changing valuations of products. 

The fact that public activities usually require resort to taxation thus 
appears as a relatively superficial circumstance. Fundamentally a tax 
system is a series of devices for distributing costs of public activities 
in the manner which corresponds most closely with prevailing standards 
of justice and equity. It cannot in any real sense be described as 
economically “ productive.” It is the public activities which are pro- 


146 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

ductive and the tax system is only the machinery for transferring eco¬ 
nomic resources from the taxpayers to the government to meet the costs 
of these activities. It is then a mistake to think of a tax system as a flow¬ 
ing spring. It is at best no more than a pump. Many of our commu¬ 
nities are badly in need of new pumping machinery, but it is well to remem¬ 
ber that a new pump is no cure for a dry well. 

The Increase and Diversion of Educational Support 

It becomes clear, then, that educational activity produces a certain val¬ 
uable product at a certain cost. Increasing the resources to be devoted 
to education is not primarily a problem of discovering new and unsuspected 
sources of public revenue. It is rather a problem of persuading the com¬ 
munity to devote its available resources to the support of educational 
activity to the extent that the educational product promises a more valu¬ 
able return than other alternative activities. 

In the light of the facts regarding the elasticity of human wants and 
capacity for consumption, there can be no denial of the reality of the limi¬ 
tations upon expenditures imposed by the relative scarcity of resources. 
The community simply cannot produce all it would like to consume and it 
cannot continue, over an extended period, to consume more than it pro¬ 
duces. It may desire an educational product which involves larger ex¬ 
penditures, but it also desires more automobiles, more motor roads, better 
houses and clothing, and many other things. A selection is necessary — 
a selection based upon the value which the community attaches to each of 
these various products. 

However, to admit that there are economic limitations is not equivalent 
to the assertion that the productive capacity of the community is fixed 
in a very precise or rigid sense. What degree of discomfort in productive 
effort the community is willing to assume will depend in large part upon 
how badly it wants the things which the additional effort will bring forth. 
There are undoubtedly considerable reserves of energy. A community 
may desire to continue to enjoy everything it now consumes and may in 
addition desire a larger educational product strongly enough to counter¬ 
balance the discomforts of the additional effort necessary to secure it. 
Again, more intelligent direction of economic energy or the utilization of 
unused energy may increase productivity. In other words, the statement 
that current consumption must be restricted to income currently pro¬ 
duced, while in general sound, does not preclude the possibility that in¬ 
come in any given period may be increased because of the stimulus supplied 
by the desire for increased consumption. Larger educational expenditures 
may conceivably be covered by increases in economic productivity. 

On the other hand, even if the community does not want the additional 
educational product badly enough to work harder or more intelligently to 


ECONOMIC LIMITATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES 147 

secure it, the option still remains of substituting the educational product 

or some other product which is now included in the community’s pro¬ 
gram of consumption. This is the rational thing to do, if the community 
really prefers the educational product. This involves diversion of resources 
rather than the expansion of aggregate resources. 

In view of the importance of diversion it is desirable to discuss 
the process in some detail. It is often assumed that the problem of 
economic limitation has been satisfactorily disposed of when statistics 
have been cited regarding the amounts spent for education as compared 
with the expenditures for soft drinks or cosmetics or advertising. If the 
purpose and the result are to persuade the community that their values 
are false and cheap when they prefer such things to education, such argu¬ 
ment is beyond criticism. If, however, the inference is drawn that 
the amounts involved in supplying education are so trifling that there 
is no need of considering the problem seriously, the use of this argument 
administers an anaesthetic to a patient who is really in need of a stimulant. 
If resources now going to the support of so-called “wasteful consumption ” 
are to be diverted to the support of objects such as public education, the 
community must be brought to a point where it is willing to steel itself 
to the abstinences and costs involved in the diversion. 

The character of the abstinences and costs involved in diversion may be 
made clear by means of an illustration. Suppose that all of the citizens 
of the State of New York were to decide suddenly to give up the use of 
soft drinks and to divert the resources hitherto devoted to the production 
and sale of soft drinks to the support of public education. The first point 
to note is that the abstinence from soft drinks would mean the disappear¬ 
ance of that group of satisfactions which their consumption had created — 
satisfactions which operated as a stimulus to such effort as was necessary 
to secure them. These “ soft-drink satisfactions” are sacrificed to secure 
more highly-desired “ educational satisfactions,” but abstinence from the 
soft drinks is clearly involved. 

To keep the illustration simple, let it be assumed that all of the activities 
involved in producing and marketing the soft drinks formerly consumed 
by th6 people of the state were performed by persons within the borders 
of the state. What has happened, economically, as a result of the decision 
to give up soft drinks? First of all, the purchasing power is now with¬ 
drawn from soft drinks and there is no further use in this field for the serv¬ 
ices and capital formerly devoted to its manufacture and sale. 1 If the 
workers who formerly made and sold soft drinks were highly skilled and 
specialized, there will certainly be a shrinkage in their power to produce 

1 Except in so far as they may be marketed elsewhere. That they can be marketed at the same price 
elsewhere assumes an increase in the demand for soft drinks elsewhere. To market them elsewhere at a 
sacrifice in price presumably involves a scattering of the loss among the producers in other states than New 
York rather than a reduction in the total amount of the loss. 


148 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


articles valued by the community involved in their transfer from their 
old work to some new work. If the capital formerly employed in making 
and marketing the soft drinks is of a character that cannot be readily de¬ 
voted to the next most valuable alternative use there will certainly be a 
shrinkage in its value. Consequently the sudden decision to eschew soft 
drinks will not immediately render available for purposes of public educa¬ 
tion an amount of economic resources of a value precisely equal to those 
which were formerly represented by the expenditures for soft drinks. The 
amount rendered available will be a sum which is smaller by the amount 
of the shrinkages noted above. 

This illustration reveals some of the qualifications which must be kept 
in mind in interpreting the statistics of resources. The figures quoted in 
the preceding chapter (page 132) relating to the wealth of the State of 
New York and the total income of the people of that state do not by any 
means represent resources which are fully or immediately available to any 
new product which the community desires. They do not represent so 
many dollars in coin. In modern times money has largely ceased to be 
used as a store of wealth. They represent rather so many dollars ’ worth 
of goods and services. Moreover, these resources are already largely 
pledged and unavailable for alternative uses. Upon them the commu¬ 
nity must draw for the satisfaction of all its economic needs. To a con¬ 
siderable extent they are specialized in character and ill-adapted to any 
other use. The supply of goods prepared for final consumption which is 
on hand at any one time forms but a small portion of the aggregate. 

It must not be overlooked, however, that even the most specialized 
instruments of production are constantly being worn out and replaced. 1 
If the transfer of public demand from one product to another be not too 
sudden and too rapid to permit old specialized instruments of production to 
be used up, the waste involved in the transfer may be greatly lessened by 
the policy of reinvestment of depreciation funds. 

Certain types of wealth and income can be easily and economically 
diverted to other uses. Moreover even if such diversion does involve a 
certain amount of apparent waste, this does not preclude the possi¬ 
bility or benefit of making the diversion. Beating swords into plow¬ 
shares is obviously not, as a rule, the most economical method of manu¬ 
facturing agricultural implements. But if the values of the community 
should undergo a change which would make a supply of swords entirely 
superfluous, this course of action would become economically sound. 

Aside from its immediate availability for desired purposes, the mere 
quantity of the accumulated wealth of a community is a valuable index of 
economic power. The possession of a large stock of it implies ability on 

1 Income is. indeed, not deemed to be net until an allowance has been made to cover the cost of such 
worn-out equipment. 


ECONOMIC LIMITATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES 149 


the part of the community to produce and save. The precise form which 
the bulk of these savings have taken in the past may not be well suited to 
diversion to the support of education, but the mere existence of stocks 
of wealth raises a presumption regarding the productive power of the com¬ 
munity which may in the future be diverted to a greater or less extent 
from present objects to others, including perhaps the support of education. 

With respect to certain of the claims upon economic resources with 
which education must compete, it is possible to quote definite figures. 
One such claim is the demand for increased amounts of capital for use in 
future production. 

In general, it is true that to live beyond the income currently produced 
means economic retrogression. 1 It is possible, for limited periods, to “ live 
upon capital,” but this cannot be continued for an extended period with¬ 
out reducing the size of the social income. In times of great stress, when 
the values at stake are so tremendous as to justify the sacrifice, capital is 
sometimes burned up in this manner. 

However, except for temporary lapses such as those caused by great 
wars, modern economic history has not been a story of retrogression, 
but one of rapid progress. The total physical product today is many 
times that of a century ago. It has much more than kept up with the 
increase of population. This increase is due largely to the fact that the 
people have not spent their entire current income for consumption goods, 
but have rather saved a part and devoted it to the building up of the cap¬ 
ital fund. 2 The hope of continued economic progress is based to a con¬ 
siderable degree upon the possibility of continuing this policy. 

Until recently no reliable estimate was available concerning the size of 
the sums annually devoted to the increase in the capital fund. Fortu¬ 
nately, however, a careful study by Dr. W. I. King of the National Bureau 
of Economic Research has just been published in the Journal of the Ameri¬ 
can Statistical Society . 3 Dr. King concludes that the country as a whole 
saved the following percentage of its aggregate income in the years indi¬ 
cated : 


Year 

Percentage 

Year 

Percentage 

Year 

Percentage 

1909 

17.1 

1913 

13.8 

1917 

16.9 

1910 

17.1 

1914 

12.5 

1918 

-3.1 

1911 

13.7 

1915 

21. 



1912 

15.6 

1916 

27.4 




1 Such a statement as this ignores the possibility of improvements in the technique of production which 
would make existing capital more productive or changes in the character of the products demanded in 
favor of products requiring relatively small capital in their production. 

1 It is not the intention to overlook the importance of improvements in industrial technique which rest 
in turn largely upon scientific discoveries, one of the most important fruits of education itself. 

3 December, 1922, p. 467. 

















150 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


TABLE 44 

TAXES 4 FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION 1 IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK COM¬ 
PARED WITH TAXES FOR OTHER PURPOSES, 1910, 1915, AND 1920 


Taxes for Education Only (in Dollars) 



1910 

1915 

1920 

Federal 2 . 

$ 68,000 

$ 116,587 

$ 636,868 

St^tG ...... 

7,696,727 

9,545,064 

16,824,425 

Local. 

48,914,785 

66,019,995 

96,677,198 

Total. 

$56,679,512 

$75,681,646 

$114,138,491 


Total Taxes Paid for All Purposes (in Dollars) 


Federal 3 . 

$ 61,045,303 

$ 74,039,736 

$ 739,570,410 

State . 

34,362,760 

38,045,124 

108,076,349 

Local. 

228,578,000 

237,427,372 

379,654,109 

r Tot£tl • • • • • 

$323,986,063 

$349,512,232 

$1,227,300,868 


1 The figures for educational expenditure represent only that part of such expenditures met from taxes 
in that year. 

2 The figures for federal taxes spent for education are the actual amount paid to the State of New York 
and to New York institutions for educational purposes. 

3 The actual amount of federal taxes paid by New York taxpayers is not available. The amount assigned 
to New York was obtained by adding (1) the actual personal income tax payments during the fiscal year 
1914-1915 and (2) a share of other federal revenues determined by the proportion which the population of 
the state bears to the total United States population. In 1920, personal income tax assessments for the 
calendar year 1920, rather than fiscal year collections, were used as a basis for assigning to New York its 
share of that tax. This basis of distribution was decided upon, after considerable study, as on the whole 
the most satisfactory available. If New York’s share is determined on the basis of actual collections of all 
federal taxes within the borders of the state, the figure of $739,570,410 for 1920 becomes approximately 
$1,422,800,000. If the amount credited to New York is determined on the basis of the income of the 
people of the state as compared with the income of the people of the country in general, the figure 
of $739,570,410 becomes $779,214,900. 

4 Meaning tax moneys expended. 

The average saving for the period is estimated at 15.6 per cent of the 
total income. 1 In terms of the present income of the people of the United 
States this means that approximately eight and a half billions of dollars are 
saved and reinvested each year. In other words, the rate of economic 
progress 2 to which we are accustomed can be obtained only by continuing 
to save about one-sixth of the income of the community. 

Another competing demand upon economic resources concerning which 
it is possible to quote statistics is the demand for product of governmental 
activities other than education. The available figures are of two types. 
The first set, presented in Table 44 and Diagram 11, relate to taxes collected, 
and the second set, presented in Table 45 and Diagram 12, relate to net 
expenditures made (cash disbursements). 

1 Needless to say, these figures are rough approximations; but they are the best approximations yet 
available. 

2 In so far as this depends upon the continued extension of the capital fund. 




























ECONOMIC LIMITATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES 151 


TABLE 44 ( Continued) 

PER-CAPITA AMOUNTS 
Taxes for Education Only (in Dollars) 



1910 

1915 

1920 

Federal. 

$ .01 

$ .01 

$ .06 

State . 

.84 

.98 

1.62 

Local. 

5.37 

6.77 

9.31 

Total. 

$6.22 

$7.76 

$10.99 


Total Taxes Paid (in Dollars) 


Federal. 

$ 6.70 

$ 7.60 

$71.21 

State . 

3.77 

3.90 

10.41 

Local. 

25.08 

24.35 

36.56 

Total. 

$35.55 

$35.85 

$118.18 


PORTION OF THE TAX DOLLAR DEVOTED TO EDUCATION (IN CENTS) 



1910 Tax Dollar 

1915 Tax Dollar 

1920 Tax Dollar 


Education 

All Pur¬ 
poses 

Education 

All Pur¬ 
poses 

Education 

All Pur¬ 
poses 

Federal. 

State . 

Local. 

$.02 

.15 

$ .19 
.11 
.70 

$.03 

.19 

$ .21 
.11 
.68 

_5 

$.01 

.08 

$ .60 
.09 
.31 

Total. 

$.17 

$1.00 

$.22 

$1.00 

$.09 

$1.00 


5 Less than $ cent. 


It is apparent that the total taxes of the people of the State of New York, 
according to this estimate, more than trebled in the period 1910-1920. 
Taxes for education, on the other hand, only doubled. These figures 
include an estimate of New York’s share of federal taxes, so that the increase 
in federal taxation for war purposes makes its influence felt. 

When the federal taxes are eliminated from the computation it is found 
that whereas education absorbed 21.5 per cent of all state and local taxes 
in the State of New York in 1910, it consumed 23.3 per cent in 1920 and 
30.0 per cent in 1921. 1 In other words, in the field of state and local taxa¬ 
tion the taxes for education are growing more rapidly than taxes for com¬ 
peting objects publicly supplied. 

On the basis of an estimated income for the people of the State of New 
York of 9.1 billions in 1920, 13.49 per cent was taken in taxation to finance 
activities collectively administered under governmental control. Taxes 
for education required 1.25 per cent of the income. 

i The underlying figures for 1921 are as follows: Total taxes (state and local), $524,774,651; amount to 
education, $157,458,088. 



























































Taxes for Education Compared with Taxes for Other Purposes 
State of New York, 1910, 1915, and 1920 

Based on Table 44 

Aggregate Amounts in Millions of Dollars 


152 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 



L'Ofc 






















ECONOMIC LIMITATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES 153 


TABLE 45 

NET EXPENDITURES (CASH DISBURSEMENTS) OF STATE AND LOCAL 
GOVERNMENTS, CLASSIFIED ACCORDING TO PURPOSE — 

STATE OF NEW YORK, 1910, 1915, AND 1920 1 



Aggregate Amounts 

in Millions 

of Dollars 

1910 

1915 

1920 

Percentage of 
Increase, 

1920 over 1910 

Education. 

$ 59.6 

$ 84.8 

$117.3 

96.8 

Streets and Highways .... 

67.4 

84.5 

106.0 

57.3 

Protection of Person and Property 

40.7 

43.9 

73.0 

79.4 

Charities and Corrections . . . 

21.6 

34.8 

63.8 

195.4 

General Government .... 

36.0 

44.8 

63.6 

76.7 

Public Utilities 2 . 

87.4 

74.0 

58.1 

-33.5 

Health and Sanitation .... 

21.1 

26.5 

50.2 

137.9 

All Other. 

39.8 

41.3 

76.2 

91.5 

Total. 

$373.6 

$434.6 

$608.2 

62.8 


Percentage of Total Spent for Each 
Purpose 



1910 

1915 

1920 

Education. 

16.0 

19.5 

19.3 

Streets and Highways. 

18.0 

19.5 

17.4 

Protection of Person and Property. 

10.9 

10.1 

12.0 

Charities and Corrections. 

5.8 

8.0 

10.5 

General Government. 

9.6 

10.3 

10.4 

Public Utilities. 

23.4 

17.0 

9.6 

Health and Sanitation. 

5.6 

6.1 

8.3 

All Other. 

10.7 

9.5 

12.5 

Total . 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 


1 The figures for state expenditures were obtained from the reports of the State Comptroller. Those 
for the local districts were secured from the Comptroller’s “Reports of Municipal Accounts,” Reports of 
the State Education Department, and the United States Census Reports on Financial Statistics of Cities. 
Capital outlay and interest are included in the figures. Where it was necessary to estimate the amount of 
interest to be allocated to a given purpose the ratio of debt for that purpose to the total debt in that district 
was applied to the total interest payments of the district. In estimating capital outlay for different pur¬ 
poses, the proportion of total capital outlay for each purpose in other districts of the same class was applied 
to total capital outlays in those districts where no classification of outlays was obtainable. In the smaller 
jurisdictions where no division of outlays was obtainable for any district, the proportions occurring in larger 
districts were used. Some error is probably involved in this last step, but no better method of estimating 
was available, and in any case the amounts involved were small enough to be negligible. In 1910, and to a 
smaller degree in 1915, the Reports of Municipal Accounts contain no figures for a number of local districts. 
Estimates for these have been supplied by assuming that expenditures were the same as average expenditures 
in districts of similar size and character. 

2 These amounts represent for the most part capital outlay for projects which are largely self-supporting. 
The diminution in the amount is due almost entirely to the drop of the expenditures for the water supply 
system in the City of New York. 

The second table and diagram make possible a more detailed com¬ 
parison. There the expenditures of the state and local governments 

















































Net Expenditures (Cash Disbursements) of State and Local Governments in Millions of 
Dollars — Classified According to Purpose — State of New York, 1910, 1915, and 1920 

Based on Table 45 


154 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 




Education Streets Protection Charities General Public Health All Other 

and of Person and Government Utilities and 
Highways and Corrections Sanitation 
















































































































ECONOMIC LIMITATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENDITURES 155 


(including federal subventions) are classified to show which of the several 
types of governmental activity are gaining and which are losing in relative 
position. It is apparent that the increase in educational expenditures is 
not an isolated one. In fact the expenditures for both “ Charities and 
Corrections” and “Health and Sanitation” have risen even more rapidly 
than education. But in 1920 education absorbed a slightly greater per¬ 
centage of the total expenditures than it did in 1910 — 19.3 per cent as 
compared with 16 per cent. 

It is in the presence of demands of this character and magnitude, in 
addition to the desire to increase living standards generally by expenditures 
for articles of consumption, produced privately rather than through gov¬ 
ernment activities, that education must seek its additional support. 
Clearly the support can be greatly increased, if the people are willing to 
meet the conditions. But as it is impossible to estimate how far the com¬ 
munity is able and willing to increase production and to countenance di¬ 
version, it is also impossible to estimate in any quantitative manner the 
limits of additional support. 

The discussion of the limitations of additional support should take 
cognizance of the very human desire to eat one’s cake and have it too. 
There are some who are eager for additional educational advantages only 
because they expect that some one else will make the effort or assume the 
abstinence and wastes of diversion. The burden must finally come to 
rest somewhere in the community, but unfortunately, because of the crude¬ 
ness of machinery for securing decisions as to what the community wants 
in the way of public activities and the crudeness of the processes of taxa¬ 
tion, ofttimes the bill which is finally presented to the individual taxpayer 
for settlement does not appeal to him as a fair one. The decision with 
regard to public expenditures is a group decision, but the decisions re¬ 
garding production effort are predominantly individual decisions. This 
situation gives rise to unfortunate reflex economic effects. When a tax¬ 
payer feels that he is not getting his money’s worth, he will not cheerfully 
make the economic effort necessary to secure the money to pay his taxes 
and will use every possible means of reducing them. The economic limita¬ 
tions, consequently, interlock intimately with complicated problems of 
governmental organization and the technique of taxation. 


CHAPTER XI 


THE PROBLEM OF SCHOOL FINANCE IN RELATION TO THE REVENUE 

SYSTEM OF THE STATE 

It is clear that the hope for a solution of the financial problem of public 
education in the State of New York does not lie in the direction of the dis¬ 
covery of some unsuspected “ new source of revenue.” It has been 
shown that education is now the most costly public function performed by 
the state and its subdivisions, accounting for nearly twenty cents out of 
each dollar spent. Improved taxation for schools resolves itself into the 
question of tax reform in general in the State of New York. 

If the discussion of the present revenue system of the state were to be 
dismissed with a sentence, it would perhaps be best to say that it is neither 
so bad as to operate as a serious limitation in the present school-finance 
situation, nor yet so good but that certain important changes are not de¬ 
sirable. New York has been one of the few states which has faced its 
fiscal pioblem squarely and taken steps to put its system of taxation into 
harmony with the changed conditions which have come about in the last 
few decades. But the reform of the revenue system is by no means com¬ 
plete even yet and, if the years which lie ahead bring with them greatly in- 
cieased demands for revenues, further fundamental readjustments in the 
system will undoubtedly become imperative. 


The System of Taxation 


The existence of a Joint Legislative Committee on Taxation and Re¬ 
trenchment, which, under the chairmanship of Senator Frederick M. 
Davenport, has been making an elaborate survey of the revenue system of 
the state, has rendered it unnecessary for the Commission to undertake 
an oiiginal investigation in this field. Close cooperation was established 
with the Davenport Committee, 1 including arrangements for the inter¬ 
change of certain data, and the Commission is fortunate in being able to re¬ 
fer readers to the report of the Committee for a full statement of the manner 
m which the present revenue system is operating and for a discussion of 
those portions of the system which appear to be in need of alteration. 2 The 


March 1921 tn M Commiss.onacted as Secretary and Chief-of-Staff of the Davenport Committee from 
* f ’ t0 ^ ar f’ 19 ? 2 ’ and has continued his connection since that time in an advisory capacity. 

e document referred to is the “ Report of the Special Joint Committee on Taxation and Retrench¬ 
ment. Submitted March 1 , 1922,” Albany, J. B. Lyon Company, Printers, 1922. Copies may be seemed 
by applying to Senator Frederick M. Davenport, Chairman, Capitol, Albany, N Y 

156 


SCHOOL FINANCE AND THE STATE’S REVENUE SYSTEM 157 


chief characteristics of the tax system as it now stands are set forth in 
Chapter VII (see pages 107-115). 

Changes Suggested by the Joint Legislative Committee. — The recom¬ 
mendations of this Joint Legislative Committee relate chiefly to the re¬ 
adjustment of the taxes on business. It reports that the special forms of 
taxation applied to financial institutions and public utilities are operating 
in an unequal manner and suggests that a new “ gross-net ” income tax 
be substituted for the present taxes on utilities, and that the regular busi¬ 
ness income tax be applied to financial institutions. It recommends 
further that unincorporated businesses be subjected to a tax on net income 
at a slightly lower rate than corporations. 

With respect to motor vehicles, the legislative committee urges the adop¬ 
tion of a gasoline tax and the readjustment of fees, particularly those of 
motor trucks, so as to make the taxes correspond as closely as possible to 
the road costs. 

The property tax, which supplies so large a share of the school revenues, 1 
should, according to the legislative committee, be made purely a real 
estate tax and personal property should be entirely exempted. 2 The 
so-called “ direct ” state tax on real estate, that is, the portion of the real 
estate rate imposed for state as contrasted with local purposes, should, 
the Davenport Committee believes, be abandoned at the earliest possible 
moment in the hope that this action will bring a measure of relief to real 
estate. It is interesting to note this suggestion in connection with some 
of the conclusions reached in Chapter XII (see page 174) regarding state 
aid for schools. 

The administration of the property tax is susceptible of improvement 
in the opinion of the committee. It urges that “ a constitutional amend¬ 
ment be submitted which will make possible a thoroughgoing reform of real 
estate assessments through the establishment of larger tax districts, officered 
by skilled assessors, functioning under a higher degree of central super¬ 
vision and control.” 3 It recommends, further, that the statutes be 
amended so as to centralize the collection of school taxes levied against 
public utilities. 4 

These, then, constitute the next steps in tax reform in the State of 
New York, in the opinion of the official committee of the State Leg¬ 
islature. It is of interest to compare the situation as it now exists 
and the recommended changes with the Plan of a Model System of 
State and Local Taxation prepared by a committee of the National Tax 
Association. 

1 See p. 108. 

2 It will be recalled that only an insignificant amount of personal property is now subject to tax. 

3 Volume cited, p. 59. 

4 Each country school district now has its own tax collector. One public-utility company testified that 
it paid school taxes to more than 4,900 separate districts. Reference cited, p. 60. See note 1, p. 113, 
of the present volume for statement regarding legislation in 1923. 


158 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


Comparison with the “ Model Plan ” of the National Tax Association.— 

In 1918, “ The Committee Appointed by the National Tax Association to 
Prepare a Plan of a Model System of State and Local Taxation/’ com¬ 
posed of a notable group of authorities on the theory and practice of 
taxation, 1 submitted a preliminary report. 2 Most students agree with 
Dr. T. S. Adams in regarding “ this report as one of the wisest and most 
helpful statements ever published concerning the proper structure of the 
tax system of the American state.” The report deals “ with the general 
principles upon which a model system of taxation may be constructed, 
and with the general framework of such a system.” The principles and 
framework have won general approval and their elaboration is being carried 
forward by various special committees of the Association. 

At the beginning, the report points out that there is a definite conviction 
in the minds of the people of this country, as revealed by the statutes 
of the various states, regarding the correctness of the following three 
propositions: 

First, “ That every person having taxable ability should pay some sort 
of a direct personal tax to the government under which he is domiciled 
and from which he receives the personal benefits that government confers ” ; 

Second, “ That tangible property, 3 by whomsoever owned, should be 
taxed by the jurisdiction in which it is located, because it there receives 
protection and other government benefits and services ” ; and 

Third, “ That business carried on for profit in any locality should be 
taxed for the benefits it receives.” 

These propositions are, in the opinion of the Committee on Model Plan, 
essentially sound and just, although in their application in the past many 
of the methods used have been illogical and inconsistent. That the future 
tax system of the states will be based on these three propositions is def¬ 
initely affirmed in the following forceful paragraph: 

“Whatever one may think of any or all of these principles, the fact remains that they 
undoubtedly represent hard facts which any new system of taxation must take into 
account. That they are not in many cases logically and consistently applied, admits 

1 The membership of the Committee was as follows: 

Charles J. Bullock, Harvard University, Chairman, 

T. S. Adams, Yale University, 

Charles V. Galloway, State Tax Commissioner of Oregon, 

Samuel T. Howe, Kansas Tax Commission, 

Celsus P. Link, Colorado Tax Commission, 

Samuel Lord, Minnesota Tax Commission, 

Ogden L. Mills, Congressman, City of New York, 

Thomas W. Page, University of Virginia, 

A. C. Rearick, Attorney at Law, City of New York, 

W. L. Tarbet, Illinois Central Railroad Company. 

2 Copies of the report may be secured by addressing A. E. Holcomb, Secretary-Treasurer, National Tax 
Association, 195 Broadway, New York, N. Y. The report is dated September, 1918, and’is available in 
the printed volume of the Proceedings of the Association for 1919, pp. 426-470. 

3 A sharp difference of opinion exists among students of taxation as to whether all tangible property 
should be so taxed or merely real estate. For the tendency in the State of New York, see p. 108. 


SCHOOL FINANCE AND THE STATE’S REVENUE SYSTEM 159 


of no doubt; that they sometimes lead to confusion and involve unjust double taxation 
and disregard of interstate comity, cannot be questioned. But the committee believes 
that there is merit in each of these principles, even though they have been frequently 
misapplied; and is satisfied that the laws in which the principles are embodied will not 
be changed except to give place to statutes that provide fairer and more logical methods 
of carrying the principles into effect.” 

The solution which the Committee on Model Plan proposes is a diversi¬ 
fied tax system of three main elements corresponding to the three princi¬ 
ples set forth above. In its opinion, every legitimate claim of every state 
can be met and unequal and unjust double taxation can be avoided by the 
general adoption of this plan. In the main this consists of: 

First, “ A personal tax 1 which shall be levied consistently upon the prin¬ 
ciple of taxing everyone at his place of domicile for the support of the 
government under which he lives; ” 

Second, “ A property tax on tangible property, levied objectively where 
such property has its situs and without regard to ownership or personal 
conditions;” and 

Third, “ For such states as desire to tax business, a business tax which 
shall be levied upon all business carried on within the jurisdiction of the 
authority levying such tax.” 

In addition the Committee on Model Plan contemplates the continu¬ 
ance of certain other sources of revenue such as fees, special assessments, 
inheritance taxes, etc. 

Comparing the situation in New York with the Model Plan, it is appar¬ 
ent that New York already has a comprehensive personal income tax of 
the general character recommended by the Committee. Its scope is 
somewhat too broad to suit the National Tax Association Committee in 
that certain types of personal income of non-residents are subject to the 
tax, but this will be rectified if the recommendations of the Davenport 
Committee are adopted by the legislature. 

New York also has a firmly established business income tax of restricted 
scope. It will be recalled that the Davenport Legislative Committee rec¬ 
ommends that its scope be extended by making its application as broad as 
business itself. 2 The state is apparently on the road to the complete 
exemption of tangible personal property, rather than its taxation at a 
light rate, an arrangement which, while not urged by the National Tax As¬ 
sociation Committee, is not in conflict with the principles of its Model 
Plan. 

The point at which New York falls farthest short of the standard set 
in the Model Plan is with respect to the organization of its local assess¬ 
ment machinery. Here a very faulty condition still obtains in spite of the 
improvements resulting from the supervision of the State Tax Commission. 

1 This, in the opinion of the Committee, should be based on net income. 

2 See p. 157. 


160 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


Here again, however, the situation will be remedied by the adoption of the 
Davenport Legislative Committee’s recommendations. 1 

Conclusions. — The Educational Finance Inquiry Commission presents 
the above analysis and comparison as an indication of the present status 
of tax reform in the State of New York and of the opinion of the author¬ 
ities quoted regarding its probable course of future legislation. Further 
than this it does not feel called upon to go. 

It should be observed, however, that tax reform is constantly condi¬ 
tioned by circumstances. An improvement in the standard of public ad¬ 
ministration would make feasible certain refinements of taxation which 
are debarred from consideration because of the grade of administrative 
skill necessary to their use. Similarly improvements in private account¬ 
ing and in taxpayers’ cooperation would affect the situation in a funda¬ 
mental manner. The effects of redistricting the state for school tax pur¬ 
poses are discussed in Chapter XII (pages 161, 162, 166-176). 


i See p. 157. 


CHAPTER XII 


THE SIZE OF THE UNIT FOR SCHOOL SUPPORT AND THE PROBLEM 

OF STATE AID 

The problem of financing public education is profoundly affected by 
the manner in which educational functions are divided among the various 
political divisions of the state and the manner in which the state is dis¬ 
tricted for raising school funds. 

The area included within the boundaries of the State of New York 
varies widely in its economic character. The state is predominantly ur¬ 
ban ; approximately 83 per cent of the total population in 1920 were living 
in places having more than 2,500 inhabitants each, and more than one-half 
of the entire population of the state were living in the City of New York 
alone. Nevertheless, more than 1,750,000 persons lived in the open coun¬ 
try or in villages of less than 2,500. The state not only includes highly 
developed industrial and commercial districts, but it includes also large 
agricultural areas of varying degrees of fertility and large tracts of sparsely 
inhabited mountain land suitable only for forest growth and of very small 
value. 

If the state were to be split into small districts and each district required 
to provide by local taxation the entire cost of maintaining its own schools, 
wide variations would necessarily result either in the educational facilities 
furnished, or in the rates of taxation for educational purposes. In some of 
the districts where the tax-paying ability of the residents is low, the 
number of children of school age is large, and the cost of providing school 
facilities high, the burden of supporting a very modest educational offer¬ 
ing might be crushing in weight. On the other hand, if the state were to 
regard public education exclusively as a state function, to be supported 
by taxation on a state-wide basis, the state’s economic resources might be 
gathered into a single pool, in which case the educational facilities of the 
poor sections would be limited, not by the size of local resources alone, but 
by the size of the resources of the state as a whole. 1 

i In Delaware the entire support of schools for the state minimum requirement is furnished by the 
state. In addition a relatively small amount (only 8.5% of the total school revenues) came from local taxes 
and other local sources for capital outlay and debt service caused by new building projects not included 
in state support. Ninety per cent of this additional revenue was raised in the city of Wilmington. In 
Maryland certain minimum standards are maintained by providing that after a 67 cent county tax has 
been levied on a state-wide equalized assessment the state will provide the funds necessary to complete the 
amount required to maintain this minimum. In California the state provides 35 per cent of the cost of 
maintaining the elementary schools and a little over 50 per cent of the corresponding cost for high schools. 

161 


162 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


The present arrangement is a compromise. Legally, public education 
is a state function, but the state has delegated the function to the local¬ 
ities while still retaining certain powers, like that of prescribing mini¬ 
mum standards, and supplying partial state support from funds supplied 
from state-wide taxes. In 1922, when the total cash disbursements of the 
public school system amounted to 196 million dollars, the state grants 
to the localities were nearly 37 millions. In this year the localities 
themselves raised $138,030,994. 1 The plan by which state support is 
distributed among the localities has been described. 2 It remains to 
examine its results in actual operation and to study school expenditures 
in relation to economic resources under various assumptions regarding the 
size and character of school districts. 

The Operation of the Present System of Subventions 

The character of the present system of subventions is described in de¬ 
tail in Chapter VI. Almost all of the state aid is distributed primarily 
on a per-teacher quota basis which varies with the classification of the 
school district and in the case of one of the quotas, with the assessed 
valuation in the district. Approximately one-half of the state aid is entirely 
unaffected by the richness of the local economic resources back of the 
teacher, and the portion which is so affected is allocated in a manner which 
favors both the very rich and the very poor localities at the expense of those 
which are moderately well off. 

Being convinced that the importance of the problem justified a some¬ 
what extended investigation, the Commission undertook to classify the 
available data so as to reveal in detail the operation of the present sub¬ 
vention system under the present organization of school districts on the 
basis of 1920 costs and subventions. The increase in state aid since 1920 
(see page 102) should be borne in mind in considering the figures. The de¬ 
tails of this study are too elaborate for full presentation in this report, 
but the main results are summarized in Table 46. 3 

In the first column it will be noted that the largest amount of real estate 
value per child of school age ($7,750) is found in the rural districts where 
the average daily attendance in the schools is five or less, and that the 
smallest amount ($3,717) of real estate per child is found in the villages. As 

1 The remainder is accounted for by federal support, by state support in other forms than grants to the 
localities, and by loans of various types. 

2 See pp. 92-101. 

3 In making the detailed study the fiscal year ending July 31, 1920, has been chosen as the latest year for 
which complete data are available. A separate study has been made of each city and each of the villages 
under superintendents. For union and common school districts samples have been used. Union schools, 
as the term is used in this study, include all schools outside of the cities and villages named above, giving 
one or more years of high school work. From these, one school, the first alphabetically, offering four years 
of high school work, was chosen from each county. The same method of selection was employed for those 
schools offering one, two, and three years of high school work, respectively. These latter schools are not 
found in every county, however. There are over 10,000 common school districts in the state offering no 


SCHOOL SUPPORT AND THE PROBLEM OF STATE AID 163 


has been pointed out above (page 67) school costs tend to rise as the number 
of pupils in average daily attendance decreases. The figures in columns 
two and three show this clearly with reference to the rural schools. The 

high school work. These have been designated rural schools. A sample of these has been chosen by taking, 
in each town, the first district, numerically, which contains one of these schools. 


TOTAL NUMBER OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF EACH CLASS IN STATE, 1919-1920, 
AND NUMBER INCLUDED IN REPORT — STATE OF NEW YORK 



Number of Districts 
in State 

Number of Districts 
Studied 

Cities 



First-Class. 

3 

3 

Second-Class. 

7 

7 

Third-Class. 

49 

49 

Total Cities. 

59 

59 

Villages under Superintendents. 

46 

46 

Union Schools 



Four-Year Academies (High Schools) 

424 

57 

Three-Year Academies. 

112 

47 

Two-Year Academies. 

34 

24 

One-Year Academies. 

49 

26 

Total Union Schools. 

619 

154 

One-Teacher and Other Rural Schools .... 

10,500 

926 


The figures for revenues and expenditures, debt and valuation of school property, and children of school 
age, average daily attendance, and number of teaching positions were taken from the annual reports of the 
local boards of education and district superintendents to the State Department of Education. To obtain 
net revenues and expenditures, it was necessary to reclassify the items listed in these reports to some extent. 
Revenues were obtained by subtracting from total receipts the amount of the cash balance, proceeds from 
sale of bonds and sale of property, and the item “all other sources.” This last item was included under 
non-revenue receipts when no further information was given since where “other sources” were definitely 
named they consisted almost entirely of the proceeds of temporary loans. Some small amounts of revenue 
may have been excluded from the revenue total in this way. Expenditures were obtained by subtracting 
from total payments all refunds, payments to sinking funds, and payments on bonds and temporary loans. 
The classification used follows, so far as feasible, that employed in the United States Census Bureau reports 
on financial statistics of cities and states. The population figures for cities, villages, and counties were 
obtained from the 1920 United States Census. Where the city or village boundaries are not coterminous 
with those of the school district the population was obtained by correspondence with the superintendents 
of such districts. 

The population of union school districts was obtained from questionnaires sent to the school principals 
in each district. The reliability of these figures is somewhat questionable. No population figures were 
available for rural school districts. The figures for children of school age, which were taken in every case 
from the education reports mentioned above, are more complete and probably more accurate, although the 
total was larger than the total of the United States Census Bureau for 1920. (The total of the education 
reports for 1920 is 2,364,162 as compared with 2,336,427 in the census.) Most of the figures have been 
computed on the basis of children of school age (five to seventeen years inclusive) in the district as the best 
available measure of the task confronting each district. 

The estimated true or full value of real estate in villages and rural school districts was computed in the 
following manner. The assessed value of real estate was found by applying the percentage of real estate value 
to total value of all taxable property (obtained from the figures in the reports of the State Tax Commission) 
to the figure for the assessed valuation of property given in the education reports. 

School districts are not listed separately in the tax reports and it has been found necessary to use this 
ratio for the town in which the district occurs. It is the opinion of the members of the State Tax De¬ 
partment who gather these figures that the proportions of real estate and personalty assessed are about equal 
in rural and village communities, and in the different towns, and as all property in each town is assessed by 
the same assessor there should be no appreciable error in applying this ratio. 

The figure for the assessed value of real estate was increased to the estimated true value of real estate 
by applying the ratio of equalization given by the State Tax Commission for each village and town. The 
estimated true valuation of real estate for counties and cities is that published in the report of the State 
Tax Commission. These valuations for the cities were found to check within one per cent with the figures 
estimated from the education reports in the manner described above except in a few instances. Most of 



















164 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

districts with small attendance and high real estate values also have high 
net expenditures and higher school taxes per child. 


TABLE 46 


COMPARISON OF REAL ESTATE VALUATIONS PER CHILD OF SCHOOL 
AGE WITH EXPENDITURES AND SOURCES OF REVENUE PER 
CHILD OF SCHOOL AGE 1 —STATE OF NEW YORK, 1920 



l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Full 

Value of 
Real Es¬ 
tate per 
Child 

Net Ex¬ 
penditure 
per Child 

School 
Tax per 
Child 

True 
School 
Tax Rate 
per $100 

State Aid 
per Child 

Percent¬ 
age of 
Revenue 
from State 
Aid 

First-Class Cities . . . 

$5479 

$55.75 

$40.14 

$ .72 

$ 3.89 

8.8% 

Second-Class Cities . . 

5044 

42.07 

39.52 

.78 

5.22 

12.5 

Third-Class Cities . . . 

4177 

42.05 

35.59 

.80 

5.94 

14.0 

Villages over 4,500 . . 

3717 

41.68 

34.59 

.83 

6.44 

15.6 

4-Year Union Schools . 

4090 

59.60 

42.68 

1.05 

11.93 

23.4 

3-Year Union Schools . . 

5105 

63.75 

46.52 

.91 

14.00 

23.3 

2-Year Union Schools . 

4214 

58.00 

47.06 

.98 

14.33 

22.1 

1-Year Union Schools . . 

5821 

58.77 

48.78 

.82 

9.99 

19.0 

Rural Schools 







Average Daily Attend- 







ance 16 and over 

4444 

34.85 

26.43 

.53 

7.73 

22.6 

Average Daily Attend- 







ance 11-15 .... 

4938 

41.20 

29.08 

.57 

12.50 

30.6 

Average Daily Attend- 







ance 6-10 .... 

5716 

54.03 

35.57 

.59 

17.94 

33.8 

Average Daily Attend- 







ance 0-5 .... 

7750 

82.50 

54.00 

.65 

27.94 

37.5 

Contract Districts 2 . . 

6750 

47.50 

23.75 

.43 

18.33 

39.2 


1 All of the figures in this table are medians (middle cases). 

2 A contract district is one contracting with another district for the education of all its children instead 
of maintaining a home school. 


The figures in column four show that in the rural districts, in spite of 
the much higher costs per child, the true school tax rate is not much greater 
in districts with small attendance than in districts with larger attendance, 
since the higher value of real estate tends to keep down the rate. The 
true tax rates in school districts other than the rural districts average 

these were cities where the city and school district boundaries are not coterminous. The estimates based 
on the education report data were used for these. One city, Utica, was found to have assessed and taxed 
for school purposes in this year (under a mistaken interpretation of the law) a large amount of personalty 
which was not taxed for other purposes and consequently did not appear on the city assessment roll. Other 
cities had used the 1918 or 1920 assessment roll for school taxes instead of that for 1919. Personalty was 
excluded from all of these valuations on account of the difficulty of estimating the true value of such property 
accurately, and also for the reason that the amount of taxable personalty was small enough to be negligible 
and will probably be exempted in a short time. 

Only 1.7 per cent of the assessed value of all property in 1920 was personalty, and the exemption of all 
such personalty from taxation has been recommended by the Joint Committee on Taxation and Retrench¬ 
ment. (Report, 1922, p. 45.) 









































SCHOOL SUPPORT AND THE PROBLEM OF STATE AID 165 


higher. The highest average true school tax rate is found in the union 
school districts maintaining four-year high schools. 

With these facts in mind the data with regard to state aid may be con¬ 
sidered. Taking first the villages, which it will be recalled have the lowest 
real estate values per child of school age, it is found that state aid supplied 
in 1920 only $6.44 per child, whereas in the rural schools of less than five 
in average daily attendance, which have the largest real estate values, 
state aid supplied $27.94 per child. 1 

TABLE 47 

COMPARISON OF REAL ESTATE VALUATIONS PER CHILD OF SCHOOL 
AGE WITH EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE PER CHILD OF SCHOOL 
AGE —RANKS ON BASIS OF MIDDLE CASE IN EACH GROUP 7 

STATE OF NEW YORK, 1920 



l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 


Full 
Value of 
Real Es¬ 
tate per 
Child 

Net Ex¬ 
pendi¬ 
tures per 
Child 

School 
Tax per 
Child 

True 
School 
Tax Rate 

State Aid 
per Child 

Percent¬ 
age of 
Revenue 
from 

State Aid 

First-Class Cities .... 

5 

6 

6 

8 

13 

13 

Second-Class Cities 

7 

9 

7 

7 

12 

12 

Third-Class Cities 

11 

10 

8 

6 

11 

11 

Villages over 4,500 . . . 

13 

11 

10 

4 

10 

10 

4-Year Union Schools . . 

12 

3 

5 

1 

7 

5 

3-Year Union Schools 

6 

2 

4 

3 

5 

6 

2-Year Union Schools 

10 

5 

3 

2 

4 

8 

1-Year Union Schools . . 

3 

4 

2 

5 

8 

9 

Rural Schools 1 Average 
Daily Attendance 16 and 
over. 

9 

13 

12 

12 

9 

7 

Rural Schools 2 Average 
Daily Attendance 11-15 . 

8 

12 

11 

11 

6 

4 

Rural Schools 3 Average 
Daily Attendance 6-10 . 

4 

7 

9 

10 

3 

3 

Rural Schools 4 Average 
Daily Attendance 5 or less 

1 

1 

1 

9 

1 

2 

Contract 6 Districts 5 . . . 

2 

8 

13 

13 

2 

1 


1 364 cases. 2 219 cases. 3 226 cases. 4 59 cases. 5 36 cases. 

6 A contract district is one contracting with another district for the education of all its children instead 
of maintaining a home school. 7 See footnote 3 on p. 162. 


Table 47 is built up by ranking the thirteen classes into which the school 
districts are divided in Table 46 on the basis of the factors enumerated in 
the headings of that table. 

1 It is true of course, as shown in column two, that the costs are higher in the rural schools with small 
attendance. To provide “equal opportunity” for children in sparsely settled country sections must be 
expected to cost more per child than in the more populous districts of the state. But column four indicates 
that the present distribution of state aid more than makes up for the higher costs of the rural schools in the 
sparsely settled areas as compared with the villages and union school districts. 


































166 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


Perhaps the most interesting comparison is between column one 
showing the value of real estate per child and column five showing state 
aid per child. It is realized that real estate is an imperfect measure of 
economic resources, but if it were a perfect measure, and if the system of 
state aid were operating perfectly to relieve economic inequalities, then 
the ranking in the real estate column should be exactly the reverse of the 
ranking of the state aid column. The actual situation is seen to be quite 
different. The schools showing the highest real estate values per child 
(rural schools with average attendance of less than five) also rank first in 
the distribution of state aid. The schools which show the lowest real estate 
values (villages), instead of being at the top in so far as state aid is con¬ 
cerned, rank fourth from the bottom. 

In the ranking according to true school tax rate (column four) it ap¬ 
pears that the rural schools occupy the five lowest places. The ranking 
of these rural school districts with respect to state aid received (column 
five) is again almost exactly opposite from what one might expect. In this 
scale instead of occupying the lowest places, they rank 1, 2, 3, 6, and 9. 

State Aid under a County System 

By increasing the size of the unit of school administration and support, 
rich territory tends to be merged with poor territory and extreme differ¬ 
ences in the economic resources of the units tend to be reduced. This 
process obviously simplifies the problem of apportioning funds for the 
equalization of educational opportunity and of tax burden. In view of 
the various proposals which have been advanced in favor of larger school 
districts as a solution of the problem of economic support it is of interest 
to examine the proportions of the task which would remain to be per¬ 
formed by the state subvention system, if the unit were made as large as 
the county. 

In the analysis by school districts in the preceding section, real estate 
was the only available index of economic resources. When counties are 
made the basis of study, it is possible to utilize the facts regarding taxable 
income as an additional measure of resources. At the urgent request of 
the Joint Legislative Committee on Taxation and Retrenchment and of 
the Educational Finance Inquiry, the statistical division of the State Tax 
Commission undertook to make a complete distribution of 1921 taxable 
incomes among the several counties of the state. Consequently, for the 
first time, reliable information regarding income is available as an aid in 
forming a judgment regarding the economic resources of the various counties 
of the state. Hitherto, taxable real estate has been the only measure 
available. 

Table 48 is a master table which presents the underlying data upon which 
the discussion in this section rests. 


SCHOOL SUPPORT AND THE PROBLEM OF STATE AID 167 


TABLE 48 

DISTRIBUTION OF SIGNIFICANT DATA WITH REFERENCE TO ECONOMIC RESOURCES 
AND SCHOOL EXPENDITURES FOR THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND FOR THE 
COUNTIES OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 1921 




Taxable In¬ 
come 

Full Value 
of Taxable 
Real Estate 

Total Edu¬ 
cation Ex¬ 
penditure 1 

State Ap¬ 
portion¬ 
ment 1 

Pupils 

in 

A. D. A. 

Chil¬ 
dren of 
School 
Age 

Number 

OF 

Teachers 2 

City of 

New York 


$ 

2,194,157,412 

$ 

10,871,493,613 s 

$ 

58,678,228.80 

$ 

5,050,160.75 

776,246 

1,313,893 

24,139.50 

Albany 


44,220,016 

219,263,844 

331,287.85 

187,447.99 

18,640 

35,721 

789.75 

Allegany . 


3,031,178 

46,882,827 

440,405.85 

115,584.17 

6,212 

7,756 

403.00 

Broome 


25,909,523 

126,225,317 

1,229,737.30 

171,829.11 

16,353 

25,062 

817.75 

Cattaraugus 


9,111,012 

79,888,095 

893,712.47 

162,549.39 

12,132 

17,118 

632.00 

Cayuga 


8,913,162 

66,923,071 

630,945.31 

123,720.86 

8,409 

14,204 

495.25 

Chautauqua 


15,377,162 

128,410,643 

1,268,489.97 

231,303.18 

18,435 

28,336 

894.75 

Chemung . 


12,166,081 

68,007,010 

626,826.82 

99,990.89 

8,438 

13,807 

410.50 

Chenango . 


3,714,507 

32,366,111 

434,819.01 

104,997.55 

5,574 

7,132 

345.00 

Clinton 


3,468,438 

30,158,704 

412,289.44 

92,438.47 

5,929 

10,505 

335.25 

Columbia . 


5,000,396 

44,140,960 

323,486.65 

75,626.33 

5,419 

7,666 

273.25 

Cortland . 


4,710,869 

28,696,229 

257,157.33 

72,300.96 

4,302 

5,684 

241.50 

Delaware . 


3,018,371 

46,837,457 

467,601.34 

141,463.93 

6,794 

9,180 

459.25 

Dutchess . 


19,398,796 

113,410,084 

691,109.98 

124,733.51 

11,849 

15,965 

516.00 

Erie . 


154,410,205 

939,056,753 

7,561,565.84 

746,086.78 

71,198 

155,781 

3,22(3.00 

Essex 


3,049,216 

37,745,136 

447,894.35 

77,589.64 

5,321 

7,714 

317.25 

Franklin . 


4,795,666 

41,860,862 

415,589.23 

103,250.67 

6,661 

10,228 

356.25 

Fulton . 


6,567,897 

40,298,548 

404,090.04 

72,724.32 

6,916 

8,661 

303.25 

Genesee 


4,346,008 

55,188,878 

349,636.95 

72,116.84 

5,961 

8,593 

315.25 

Greene . . 


2,016,637 

24,371,671 

235,038.12 

59,670.78 

3,699 

5,165 

180.00 

Hamilton . 


240,816 

11,174,310 

73,698.33 

15,013.74 

591 

797 

56.00 

Herkimer . 


9,220,722 

75,973,533 

656,365.61 

117,667.86 

9,988 

12,896 

305.50 

Jefferson . 


12,089,701 

96,636,875 

804,522.27 

182,808.07 

13,009 

18,331 

857.75 

Lewis 


1,766,502 

26,587,252 

241,765.97 

74,460.46 

3,689 

5,013 

257.50 

Livingston 


3,972,892 

47,474,908 

375,582.80 

80,224.92 

4,803 

6,923 

301.25 

Madison 


5,382,615 

39,560,217 

421,467.35 

100,905.17 

6,756 

7,922 

354.25 

Monroe 


101,752,991 

540,507,891 

4,027,780.98 

258,175.43 

43,288 

72,226 

1,973.50 

Montgomery 


10,092,136 

59,532,216 

452,912.54 

82,344.83 

8,124 

12,144 

362.00 

Nassau . 


51,159,329 

295,374,423 

1,916,755.46 

191,596.09 

20,548 

28,176 

817.00 

Niagara 


21,477,435 

198,847,003 

1,210,417.58 

157,963.02 

16,774 

30,241 

713.50 

Oneida . 


33,311,509 

196,869,536 

2,137,224.97 

344,083.92 

25,403 

37,314 

1,152.00 

Onondaga . 


58,465,867 

314,344,821 

2,180,734.77 

294,436.90 

36,063 

42,084 

1,291.50 

Ontario 


7,476,292 

73,013,963 

478,187.01 

109,577.05 

7,324 

11,880 

398.75 

Orange 


24,571,354 

145,054,161 

1,165,793.73 

160,332.06 

16,938 

21,926 

698.00 

Orleans 


3,337,044 

40,636,404 

277,751.84 

61,567.21 

4,362 

6,045 

233.50 

Oswego 


7,836,655 

74,282,804 

617,538.28 

148,676.84 

9,870 

15,413 

517.50 

Otsego . 


7,029,386 

48,213,873 

456,162.45 

129,053.15 

6,591 

8,399 

397.25 

Putnam 


2,865,499 

24,679,183 

126,660.10 

25,484.05 

1,590 

2,055 

91.50 

Rensselaer 


20,384,332 

108,274,474 

831,008.33 

150,488.78 

12.009 

21,985 

579.50 

Rockland . 


12,063,544 

56,704,418 

429,229.74 

70,030.50 

6,822 

10,350 

151.00 

St. Lawrence 


6,917,934 

82,820,290 

835,808.61 

210,030.29 

12,428 

17,703 

747.75 

Saratoga . 


8,321,130 

61,884,043 

629,356.33 

118,392.86 

8,655 

12,139 

448.50 

Schenectady 


23,359,238 

141,680,587 

1,471,234.77 

157,433.84 

17,980 

26,516 

719.00 

Schoharie . 


1,543,861 

16,981,623 

194,100.11 

60,506.89 

2,929 

3,858 

197.25 

Schuyler . 


938,011 

13,714,429 

133,545.24 

36,966.64 

1,922 

2,361 

129.00 

Seneca . 


1,957,698 

27,133,324 

188,978.70 

42,900.00 

2,920 

4,403 

159.75 

Steuben 


10,037,714 

72,267,394 

731,639.07 

179,264.14 

11,826 

15,629 

675.50 

Suffolk . . 


24,059,808 

204,577,615 

1,148,908.30 

164,806.24 

17,199 

22,738 

724.50 

Sullivan 


2,597,783 

40,212,019 

327,176.46 

87,903.66 

5,730 

8,357 

287.75 

Tioga . . 


2,110,975 

20,812,909 

263,063.10 

68,663.21 

3,943 

4,792 

226.75 

Tompkins . 


7,260,478 

43,511,420 

487,515.67 

79,072.73 

5,292 

7,570 

290.00 

Ulster . 


9,604,816 

74,377,963 

514,044.22 

122,059.22 

10,227 

15,171 

444.25 

Warren 


5,685,921 

36,703,408 

278,618.59 

56,971.80 

3,875 

5,490 

213.75 

Washington 


4,424,205 

35,482,162 

409,045.76 

110,472.74 

6,790 

9,259 

386.75 

Wayne . . 


4,766,454 

61,788,819 

474,435.62 

105,634.24 

8,388 

10,332 

395.00 

Westchester 


177,008,903 

748,559,450 

6,140,935.83 

503,450.16 

57,065 

80,010 

2,284.75 

Wyoming . 


2,277,499 

33,585,677 

331,455.79 

77,211.21 

5,009 

6,669 

296.25 

Yates . . 

• 

1,154,348 

20,185,277 

150,167.31 

48,900.65 

2,439 

3,139 

149.00 


1 1920. 2 Fractions caused by some teachers teaching part of a school year. 3 This figure was later 

corrected to $10,961,681,401, but the original figure was used as a basis for collecting the tax. 






























1G8 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


TABLE 49 


INCOME, FULL VALUE TAXABLE REAL ESTATE, AND “INDEX OF ECONOMIC 
RESOURCES” PER PUPIL IN AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE, PER 
CHILD OF SCHOOL AGE AND PER TEACHER, FOR THE CITY 
OF NEW YORK AND FOR THE COUNTIES OF THE STATE 

OF NEW YORK, 1921 



Income 

Full Value Taxable 
Real Estate 

Index of 

Economic Resources 1 

Per Pupi 
in A.D.A 

Per Child 
School 
Age 

Per 

Teacher 

Per Pupil 
in 

A. D. A. 

Per Child 
School 
Age 

Per 

Teacher 

Per Pupil 
in 

A. D. A. 

Per Child 
School 
Age 

Per 

Teacher 

City of N. Y. 

$2,827 

$1,670 

$90,895 

$14,005 

$8,274 

$450,361 

$2,114 

$1,249 

$67,966 

Albany 

2,372 

1,238 

55,992 

11,763 

6,138 

277,637 

1,774 

926 

41,878 

Allegany . 

488 

391 

7,522 

7,547 

6,045 

116,335 

621 

498 

9,577 

Broome 

1,584 

1,034 

31,684 

7,719 

5,037 

154,357 

1,178 

769 

23,560 

Cattaraugus . 

751 

532 

14,416 

6,585 

4,667 

126,405 

705 

499 

13,528 

Cayuga . . 

1,060 

628 

17,997 

7,959 

4,712 

135,130 

928 

549 

15,755 

Chautauqua . 

834 

543 

17,186 

6,966 

4,532 

143,516 

765 

498 

15,769 

Chemung 

1,442 

881 

29,637 

8,060 

4,926 

165,669 

1,124 

687 

23,102 

Chenango . 

666 

521 

10,767 

5,807 

4,538 

93,815 

624 

487 

10,074 

Clinton 

585 

330 

10,346 

5,087 

2,871 

89,959 

547 

309 

9,671 

Columbia . 

923 

652 

18,300 

8,146 

5,758 

161,541 

869 

614 

17,227 

Cortland . 

1,095 

829 

19,507 

6,670 

5,049 

118,825 

881 

667 

15,695 

Delaware . 

444 

329 

6,572 

6,894 

5,102 

101,987 

567 

420 

8,386 

Dutchess . 

1,636 

1,215 

37,595 

9,571 

7,104 

219,787 

1,297 

963 

29,787 

Erie 

2,169 

991 

47,909 

13,189 

6,028 

291,361 

1,744 

797 

38,522 

Essex . 

573 

395 

9,611 

7,094 

4,893 

118,976 

641 

442 

10,754 

Franklin . 

720 

469 

13,462 

6,284 

4,093 

117,504 

674 

439 

12,606 

Fulton . 

950 

758 

21,658 

5,827 

4,653 

132,889 

766 

612 

17,474 

Genesee 

729 

506 

13,786 

9,258 

6,423 

175,064 

827 

574 

15,646 

Greene . 

545 

390 

11,204 

6,589 

4,719 

135,398 

602 

431 

12,372 

Hamilton . 

407 

302 

4,300 

18,907 

14,020 

199,541 

1,149 

852 

12,127 

Herkimer . 

923 

715 

30,182 

7,606 

5,891 

248,686 

842 

652 

27,525 

Jefferson . 

929 

660 

14,095 

7,428 

5,272 

112,663 

836 

593 

12,680 

Lewis . 

479 

352 

6,860 

7,207 

5,304 

103,251 

600 

441 

8,593 

Livingston 

827 

574 

13,188 

9,884 

6,858 

157,593 

908 

630 

14,474 

Madison . 

797 

679 

15,194 

5,856 

4,994 

111,673 

691 

589 

13,181 

Monroe 

2,351 

1,409 

51,560 

12,486 

7,484 

273,883 

1,800 

1,079 

39,474 

Montgomery 

1,242 

831 

27,879 

7,328 

4,902 

164,454 

988 

661 

22,162 

Nassau 

2,490 

1,816 

62,618 

14,375 

10,483 

361,535 

1,964 

1,432 

49,386 

Niagara 

1,280 

710 

30,102 

11,854 

6,575 

278,692 

1,233 

684 

28,985 

Oneida . 

1,311 

893 

28,916 

7,750 

5,276 

170,894 

1,043 

710 

23,003 

Onondaga . . 

1,621 

1,389 

45,270 

[8,717 

7,469 

243,395 

1,246 

1,068 

34,805 

Ontario 

1,021 

628 

18,749 

9,969 

6,146 

183,107 

1,009 

622 

18,530 

Orange 

1,451 

1,120 

35,203 

8,564 

6,616 

207,814 

1,154 

891 

27,992 

Orleans 

765 

552 

14,291 

9,316 

6,722 

174,032 

848 

612 

15,847 

Oswego 

794 

508 

15,143 

7,526 

4,819 

143,542 

773 

495 

14,749 

Otsego . 

1,067 

837 

17,695 

7,315 

5,740 

121,369 

899 

705 

14,916 

Putnam 

1,802 

1,394 

31,317 

15,521 

12,009 

269,718 

1,677 

1,298 

29,144 

Rensselaer 

1,697 

927 

35,176 

9,016 

4,925 

186,841 

1,300 

710 

26,930 

Rockland . 

1,768 

1,166 

79,891 

8,312 

5,479 

375,526 

1,300 

857 

58,722 

St. Lawrence 

557 

391 

9,252 

6,664 

4,678 

110,759 

612 

429 

10,164 

Saratoga . 

961 

685 

18,553 

7,150 

5,098 

137,980 

838 

598 

16,176 

Schenectady 

1,299 

881 

32,489 

7,880 

5,343 

197,052 

1,044 

708 

26,097 

Schoharie . 

527 

400 

7,827 

5,798 

4,402 

86,092 

553 

420 

8,218 

Schuyler . 

483 

397 

7,271 

7,135 

5,809 

106,313 

601 

489 

8,951 

Seneca . 

670 

445 

12,255 

9,292 

6,162 

169,849 

800 

530 

14,620 

Steuben 

848 

642 

14,860 

6,111 

4,624 

106,984 

730 

552 

12,779 

Suffolk . 

1,399 

1,058 

33,209 

11,895 

8,997 

282,371 

1,294 

979 

30,723 

Sullivan 

453 

311 

9,028 

7,018 

4,812 

139,746 

578 

396 

11,501 

Tioga . 

535 

441 

9,310 

5,278 

4,343 

91,788 

532 

437 

9,244 

Tompkins 

1,372 

959 

25,036 

8,222 

5,748 

150,039 

1,097 

767 

20,020 

Ulster . 

939 

633 

21,620 

7,273 

4,903 

167,424 

833 

562 

19,181 

Warren 

1,467 

1,036 

26,601 

9,472 

6,686 

171,712 

1,207 

852 

21,886 

Washington . 

652 

478 

11,439 

5,226 

3,832 

91,744 

587 

431 

10,307 

Wayne . 

568 

461 

12,067 

7,366 

5,980 

156,427 

652 

530 

13,855 

Westchester 

3,102 

2,212 

77,474 

13,118 

9,356 

327,633 

2,207 

1,574 

55,119 

Wyoming . 

455 

342 

7,688 

6,705 

5,036 

113,369 

563 

423 

9,512 

Yates . 

473 

368 

7,747 

8,276 

6,430 

135,472 

650 

505 

10,647 


1 Index of economic resources 


(Taxable income) T~ (^ - Full value of real estate) 


See p. 171. 


o 







































SCHOOL SUPPORT AND THE PROBLEM OF STATE AID 169 


Table 49 presents results obtained when income, real estate values, and 
the combination of these values, which will hereafter be described as the 
index of economic resources, are related to certain measures of the size of 
the educational task. 

That reported taxable income is distributed among the counties in a 
very different manner from real estate is apparent from the inspection of 
the figures. The extreme variation in real estate values in the school dis¬ 
tricts has already been noted. Taking the county as a unit, the value 
of the real estate per pupil in average daily attendance varies from $5,087 
in Clinton County to $18,907 in Hamilton County. The variation in 
income proves to be even greater than that in the real estate figures. The 
lowest income per pupil in average daily attendance is $407 in Hamilton 
County. The highest is $3,102 in Westchester County. That these 
variations in income are not commonly accompanied by a like variation in 
real estate values will appear in the table presented below. 

TABLE 50 


RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME AND FULL 
VALUE OF REAL ESTATE BY COUNTIES — STATE OF NEW YORK, 1921 


Name op County 

Percentage Which 
Income Is op Full 
Value of Real 
Estate 

Rank 

City of New York. 

20.2% 

41 

Albany. 

20.2 


Allegany. 

6.5 

54± 

Broome. 

20.5 

3 

Cattaraugus. 

11.4 

36 

Cayuga . 

13.3 

25 

Chautauqua. 

12.0 

30 

Chemung. 

17.9 

9 

Chenango . 

11.5 

34 

Clinton . 

11.5 

34 

Columbia. 

11.3 

37 

Cortland. 

16.4 

m 

Delaware. 

6.4 

56 

Dutchess. 

17.1 

11 

Erie. 

16.4 

m 

Essex. 

8.1 

47 

Franklin. 

11.5 

34 

Fulton. 

16.3 

19 

Genesee . .. 

7.9 

48 

Greene. 

8.3 

45 

Hamilton. 

2.2 

58 

Herkimer. 

12.1 

29 

Jefferson. 

12.5 

27h 

Lewis. 

6.6 

53 

Livingston . 

8.4 

43 £ 

Madison. 

13.6 

23 

Monroe . 

18.8 

6* 


(Table 50 continued on following page.) 






































170 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


TABLE 50 ( Continued) 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME AND FULL 
VALUE OF REAL ESTATE BY COUNTIES —STATE OF NEW YORK, 1921 


Name of County 

Percentage Which 
Income Is of Full 
Value of Real 
Estate 

Rank 

Montgomery. 

17.0 

12 

Nassau. 

17.3 

10 

Niagara. 

10.8 

38 

Oneida. 

16.9 

13^ 

Onondaga . 

18.6 

8 

Ontario. 

10.2 

40 

Orange. 

16.9 

m 

Orleans. 

8.2 

46 

Oswego. 

10.5 

39 

Otsego. 

14.6 

21 

Putnam. 

11.6 

32 

Rensselaer. 

18.8 

62 

Rockland. 

21.3 

2 

St. Lawrence. 

8.4 

434 

Saratoga. 

13.4 

24 

Schenectady. 

16.5 

16 

Schoharie. 

9.1 

42 

Schuyler. 

6.8 

51! 

Seneca .• . 

7.2 

50 

Steuben. 

13.9 

22 

Suffolk. 

11.8 

31 

Sullivan. 

6.5 

54i 

Tioga . 

10.1 

41 

Tompkins. 

16.7 

15 

Ulster. 

12.9 

26 

Warren. 

15.5 

20 

Washington. 

12.5 

274 

Wayne. 

7.7 

49 

Westchester. 

23.6 

1 

Wyoming. 

6.8 

514 

Yates. 

5.7 

57 


The figures reported in this table are the percentage which the total 
taxable income in each county is of the full value of real estate in that 
county. The range in these percentages is from 2.2 per cent in Hamilton 
County to 23.6 per cent in Westchester County. The ratios for other 
counties range rather uniformly between these extremes. 

The income figures, as presented in these tables, have a shortcoming 
to which particular attention should be called. Income tax returns are 
filed at the place of residence of the recipient. Thus an individual whose 
residence is established in the City of New York files his income return 
there irrespective of where the income arises. This individual may have 
interests in various sections of the state. He may, in addition to his town 
house in the city, own a factory in Buffalo, an estate in Westchester, and a 
camp in the Adirondacks. Yet his economic strength, so far as income is 












































SCHOOL SUPPORT AND THE PROBLEM OF STATE AID 171 


concerned, would be credited entirely to the city in which his return is 
filed. It is important to bear in mind the fact that the distribution of the 
taxable incomes among the counties yields an exhibit of the economic 
resources of the people of the county rather than of the counties themselves. 

Whether real estate values alone or taxable incomes alone are adopted 
as the measure of economic resources, those resources appear to vary 
greatly in relation to the educational task. Even though the boundaries 
of the local unit were expanded from their present narrow limits and made 
co-extensive with those of the counties, this would not result in the 
elimination or even in the reduction in the task to be performed by the 
state subvention system if equalization were to be achieved. 

It should be borne in mind that real estate and income are used in this 
chapter as measures of the economic resources of the counties, rather than 
as directly available tax bases. When mention is made of the taxable 
income in a county, for example, it is not to be inferred that a local tax on 
income is suggested. The question of methods of taxation for tapping 
these economic resources is discussed in another place. 1 

Since both real estate values and income are presented as measures of 
the same thing — economic resources — and since there are cases of wide 
divergence in the measures, some counties which have large real estate 
values and small incomes and vice-versa , the question arises as to whether 
some combination of the two measures would not result in a more useful 
index of resources than either of the two measures alone. The data pre¬ 
sented in Table 49 under the heading “ Index of Economic Resources ” 
represent the result of such a combination when related to certain measures 
of the educational task. 

This index is presented in the belief that it is distinctly more trust¬ 
worthy than the indices resting upon real estate or property values 
alone which are often used in studies of this type. Nevertheless, it 
is presented with a degree of diffidence because it is realized that the 
statistical problem involved in establishing the precise weight to be as¬ 
signed to income as compared with real estate cannot be solved with ex¬ 
actness with the resources at the disposal of the Commission. 2 After con- 

1 See p. 156 et seq. 

2 There are several factors of importance which affect this problem of determining the precise weight to 
be assigned to income as compared with real estate, concerning which statistical evidence is meager. The 
income figures include net incomes from real estate so far as they are taxable. The real estate figures al¬ 
though they comprise an important element in total wealth (17 out of 25 billion dollars according to the 
1912 census), represent after all only one element. The income figures do not represent total income but only 
taxable income (3,216 millions as compared with an estimated total income of 7,530 millions of dollars). 
Again they include not merely income from property, but income from personal services as well. More¬ 
over, real estate values as a measure of taxable resources can be interpreted only by taking into account the 
present and expected real estate tax burden, because, under the theory of capitalization, the real estate 
values Quoted are based upon net incomes after taxes have been paid, feuch are the factors entering into 
the problem. 

A truly satisfactory index must certainly take wealth as well as income into account. New data re¬ 
specting wealth and income in the state will soon be available from the census and fiom ether sources which 


172 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


siderable study and consultation with the economic advisers to the Com¬ 
mission the following definition was arrived at: 

Index of eco- (Taxable income) -f- (-to Full value of real estate) 

- - — - ——■— - ^ # 

nomic resources 2 

This definition assigns to a dollar of income ten times the importance given 
to a dollar of real estate value. Thus a county with twenty millions of 
real estate value and one million of taxable income is given the same index 
of economic resources as a second county which has only ten millions of 
real estate, but two millions of taxable income. 

It has been shown that if real estate is accepted as a measure of eco¬ 
nomic resources, the system of state aid as at present organized does not 
succeed in removing the financial inequalities among the school districts 
of the state. Nor does the present system of state aid, when computed 
on the county basis, show the proper correlation with the index of economic 
resources developed in this section. * 1 

should be of assistance in establishing the proper weighting of a formula. If it should prove desirable to 
reconstruct the subvention system of the state in a manner which involves the use of an index of economic 
resources, it is urged that an exhaustive study be made with the object of establishing as precisely as pos¬ 
sible the proper weighting of the various elements entering into it. 

The Commission, realizing that with the resources at its disposal, it could not hope to solve this weight¬ 
ing problem exactly, decided to test the data to ascertain the importance of precision in the weighting. 
Experiment showed that, so far as affecting the relative ranking of the counties in a scale was concerned, 
a wide variation in the weight assigned to income as compared with real estate produced remarkably slight 
variations. 

Four methods of combining these values were tested. The amount of taxable income per county was 
added to |, ^ s , and & of the full value of real estate in that county, and the sums divided by two to 

produce four different measures or indices of the economic resources of the several counties. The counties 
were then ranked on the basis of the four indices and the other three distributions were compared with the 
index obtained by using the combination of income and of the value of real estate. The close cor¬ 
respondence in the ranking of the counties, whatever the method of combination, is shown in the table 
following: 


DEVIATIONS BETWEEN RANKS WHEN COMBINING INCOME WITH FOLLOWING 

PERCENTAGE OF VALUE OF REAL ESTATE 


T?y AND t 

Tff and ys- 

AND Tiy 

Deviation 

No. Cases 

Deviation 

No. Cases 

Deviation 

No. Cases 

0 

24 

0 

40 

0 

33 

1 

23 

1 

14 

1 

15 

2 

4 

2 

4 

2 

9 

3 

4 

3 

0 

3 

1 

4 

2 

4 

0 

4 

0 

5 

1 

5 

0 

5 

0 

M edian 

1 

0 

0 


Middle 






Fifty per 






cent 0-1 

0 - 

-1 

0-1 


The index making use of r V of the value of real estate is most closely related to that using T V, but in no 
case is the deviation of the rank of the middle case more than one case. 

1 Evidence of this failure of state apportionment in equalizing differences in the total economic re¬ 
sources among counties is presented on the next page in the table of coefficients of correlation using counties 
as units. 

























SCHOOL SUPPORT AND THE PROBLEM OF STATE AID 173 


u Equalization of Educational Opportunity ” 

There exists today and has existed for many years a movement which 
has come to be known as the “ equalization of educational opportunity ” 
or the “ equalization of school support.” These phrases are interpreted 
in various ways. In its most extreme form the interpretation is somewhat 
as follows: The state should insure equal educational facilities to every 
child within its borders at a uniform effort throughout the state in terms 
of the burden of taxation; the tax burden of education should throughout 
the state be uniform in relation to tax-paying ability, 1 and the provision for 
schools should be uniform in relation to the educable population desiring 
education. Most of the supporters of this proposition, however, would not 
preclude any particular community from offering at its own expense a 
particularly rich and costly educational program. They would insist that 
there be an adequate minimum offered everywhere, the expense of which 
should be considered a prior claim on the state’s economic resources. 2 



On Basis of Gross Amounts * 

Correlations among Vari¬ 
ous Per-Capita Figures 


Direct 
Correla¬ 
tion (ex¬ 
cept D) 

Partial Correlations, Each 
of Following Made Constant: 

Per 

Per 

Per 

Teacher 


Total 

Children 

5-17 

Total 
Pupils 
in A.D.A. 

Total 

Teachers 

Child 

5-17 

Pupil in 
A. D. A. 

A. Economic Resources and 
School Expenditures .... 

+ .837 

+ .100 

- .055 

+ .381 

+ .340 

+ .363 

+ .788 

B. School Expenditures and 
State Apportionment . . . 

+ .874 

+ .192 

+ .279 

-1- .092 

+ .359 

+ .052 

- .056 

C. Economic Resources and 
State Apportionment . . . 

-f- .773 

- .343 

+ .092 

- .342 

- .470 

- .631 

- .225 

D. Economic Resources and 
School Expenditures, State 
Apportionment Being Made 
Constant. 

+ .524 

+ .170 

- .084 

+ .416 

+ .618 

+ .511 

+ .797 


♦New York City and Erie, Monroe, and Westchester Counties do not figure in the first four columns. 
These are the groups especially affected by the three first-class cities, New York, Buffalo, and Rochester. 
The gross amounts for these four groups were so much greater than in the 54 other counties that correlation 
coefficients based on figures for all the 58 groups were practically meaningless. 

A comparison of items “A” and “D” shows in column (1) that there is a higher correlation between 
economic resources and the total expenditures for schools, than there is between economic resources and 
school expenditures when the state apportionment to counties has been equalized. In other words, the 
addition of the state apportionment to the amount raised locally for the support of schools tends to make 
more perfect the correspondence between high economic resources and large school expenditures. Item “ C ” 
of the table shows in five of the seven columns that there is a negative relationship between economic re¬ 
sources and the state apportionment, but these coefficients are very much less than the -1.00 which would 
result were the state aid system based entirely upon the economic resources of communities. 

1 It should be observed that equalization of the rate of taxation for educational purposes in the different 
sections of the state would not result in a uniform total tax rate throughout the state. There are other 
essential governmental needs besides public education which must be provided for in varying amounts, and 
at varying costs by the different localities. 

2 A good statement of this policy, as popularly interpreted, was given in a recent editorial which advo¬ 
cated‘‘such legislation as would assure the country child educational advantages in every corner of the 
state comparable with those of the city child, and at the same time equalize the educational burden so 
far as that could be done.” Times, New York, January 24, 1923. 




























174 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


This proposal assumes, of course, that the interest of the state in provid¬ 
ing an equal educational opportunity for each child outweighs the pos¬ 
sible economic objection that the operation of such a plan involves a 
subsidy to economically backward communities, with its attendant pos¬ 
sibilities of misdirected economic effort. It is proposed in this section 
to examine some of the fiscal implications of this principle. 

To carry into effect the principle of “ equalization of educational op¬ 
portunity ” and “ equalization of school support” as commonly under¬ 
stood it would be necessary (1) to establish schools or make other arrange¬ 
ments sufficient to furnish the children in every locality within the state 
with equal educational opportunities up to some prescribed minimum; 

(2) to raise the funds necessary for this purpose by local or state taxation 
adjusted in such manner as to bear upon the people in all localities at the 
same rate in relation to their tax-paying ability, and (3) to provide ade¬ 
quately either for the supervision and control of all the schools, or for 
their direct administration, by a state department of education. 

The simplest method of financing the school system to achieve the aims 
of the principle would be through uniform state-wide taxes based on abil¬ 
ity-to-pay. Such a proposal, however, encounters serious obstacles such 
as the difficulties of centralizing the administration of school funds, in 
large states particularly, without deadening local interest and initiative, 
and the difficulties of developing a suitable revenue system with the nec¬ 
essary central control of assessments and rates. The strength of position 
in favor of local control of schools and of school finances makes it desirable 
to inquire what measure of responsibility for financial support may be left 
to the localities, if the aims of the principle are to be gained. The essentials 
are that there should be uniformity in the rates of school taxation levied to 
provide the satisfactory minimum offering and that there be such a degree 
of state control over the expenditure of the proceeds of school taxes as may 
be necessary to insure that the satisfactory minimum offering shall be made 
at a reasonable cost. Since costs vary from place to place in the state, and 
bear diverse relationships to the tax-paying abilities of the various districts, 
the achievement of uniformity would involve the following: 

(1) A local school tax in support of the satisfactory minimum offering 
would be levied in each district at a rate which would provide the neces¬ 
sary funds for that purpose in the richest district. 

» 

(2) This richest district then might raise all of its school money by 
means of the local tax, assuming that a satisfactory tax, capable of being 
locally administered, could be devised. 1 

(3) Every other district could be permitted to levy a local tax at the 
same rate and apply the proceeds toward the costs of schools, but — 

(4) Since the rate is uniform, this tax would be sufficient to meet the costs 


1 The question of progressive rates enters here to complicate the problem. 


SCHOOL SUPPORT AND THE PROBLEM OF STATE AID 175 


only in the richest districts and the deficiencies would be made up by state 
subventions. 1 

As an example of the application of this principle to the State of New 
York, the following calculation, based on the data submitted in this chapter, 
is presented. In this calculation it is assumed that the local unit is the 
county, that costs are uniform throughout the state, and that the cost 
per pupil is that obtained by dividing the total school expenditure of the 
year by the total number of pupils in average daily attendance. The 
assumed amount of the expense per pupil has no effect on the percentages. 

The richest county in the state, according to the index of economic re¬ 
sources back of each pupil in average daily attendance, is Westchester 
County. Under the plan outlined on page 166 there might be levied in this 
county a local tax sufficient to meet its entire school cost, assuming those 
costs to be based upon the uniform per-pupil cost as computed above. A tax 
imposed at the same rate in all of the other counties would raise in the state 
as a whole a sum sufficient to pay 77.5 per cent of the total school expend¬ 
iture. The balance, or 22.5 per cent, of the total amount necessary to 
finance the schools would remain to be raised by means of a state-wide 
uniform tax. In other words, even though the size of the school district 
were expanded from its present small limits to the county basis, it would 
still be necessary to increase somewhat the amount raised by the state and 
distributed among the localities as state aid. In 1922 the state aid amounted 
to $41,114,317, or 21 per cent of the total cash disbursements of $196,034,409. 
According to this calculation it would be necessary for the state to increase 
its state aid to 22.5 per cent of the total. 2 

1 The proposition has been seriously advanced by some students of the problem (for example, Harlan 
Updegraff, Financial Support, “Rural School Survey of New York State,” 1922, p. 112 et seq.) that a 
system of state aid may and should be used to achieve simultaneously the double object of equalizing the 
variations in the economic resources of the various localities, and of rewarding such communities as 
make a special “effort ” in the direction of providing local school facilities. If the sums given to localities 
as rewards are so substantial that they result in a perceptible diminution of tax burden of the locality 
which makes the unusual effort, they tend to destroy the equality of tax burden called for under the 
principle. Moreover, this does not take into account the origin of the funds which are distributed as “ re¬ 
wards.” If, as would be probable, they come from a fund supplied by state-wide taxes, it will normally 
mean that a locality which makes a special “effort,” be it rich or poor, will profit at the expense of the 
other counties of the state, rich and poor. It is difficult to see how equality can be achieved under a for¬ 
mula which includes as an integral part, an arrangement for rewards paid without regard for the 
economic strength of the locality receiving the bonus or the added burden upon other counties which are 
taxed to supply the funds from which the bonus is paid. Any formula which attempts to accomplish the 
double purpose of equalizing resources and rewarding effort must contain elements which are mutually in¬ 
consistent. It would appear to be more rational to seek to achieve local adherence to proper educa¬ 
tional standards by methods which do not tend to destroy the very uniformity of effort called for by the 
doctrine of equality of educational opportunity. 

2 The richest county in the state in terms of economic resources per pupil is Westchester. The formula, 

(Taxable income) + (to Full value of real estate) , divi(le( j bv (Number of pupils in A. D. A.) gives a figure 

2 

of $2,207 for this county. 

The state-wide expenditure per pupil was $109,691,502 divided by 1,443,647 pupils, or $75.98. 

The percentage which it would be necessary to apply to economic resources to obtain this amount per 

pupil in Westchester County is $75.98 divided by $2,207, or 3.443. 

(Taxable income) -I- (tV Full value of real estate). 

The total economic resources of the state,-- 2 ~ 




176 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The principle of equality of educational opportunity, followed to its logical 
conclusion, is found to arrive at the equivalent of a state educational sys¬ 
tem, which requires a satisfactory state-wide minimum offering sup¬ 
ported by taxes of uniform weight in relation to tax-paying ability 
throughout the state. This is clearly the destination toward which present 
forces are tending. The seriousness of the problems to be solved before that 
destination can be reached should be borne in mind, however. Unless local 
interest and initiative can be preserved and encouraged and unless the 
necessary revenue reforms can be attained, the progress of the movement 
toward equalization may be arrested; moreover, the desirability of con¬ 
tinuing to levy and collect locally such part of the school revenues as can 
conveniently and economically be so administered should not be over¬ 
looked. 

While it is scarcely probable that the state in the near future will go the 
full length of placing the finances of public education on a state-wide basis, 
it will, nevertheless, be desirable for those responsible for the formulation 
of the tax system of the state to bear in mind the possibility of this develop¬ 
ment. Moreover, there seems to be good ground for the belief that what¬ 
ever may be done in the direction of enlarging the size of school districts, 
the subvention problem of the state must increase rather than decrease 
in importance if equalization is to be attained. 

Even though no material change is made in the amount of state support, 
the present system of apportioning state aid among the localities has no 
valid excuse for continued existence. It is suggested that the needed 
revision will prove beneficial in proportion as it bases grants of state aid 
to education on the best obtainable knowledge of the cost of the satisfac¬ 
tory minimum of schooling, and the best obtainable measures of the 
economic resources of the several school units. 

$2,470,515,304. A percentage of 3.443 levied on this amount would yield $85,059,842. This amount is 77.5 
per cent of the total amount needed to provide a state-wide expenditure of $75.98 per pupil in A. D. A. To 
raise this amount it would be necessary to make a levy of .997 of one per cent additional. The total state¬ 
wide school percentage would therefore be 4.44 per dollar of total economic resources. On this basis 3.43 
per cent would be retained in each taxing district and .997 of one per cent would be paid into the state aid 
fund to be redistributed among the counties. 

On this basis a county whose economic resources per pupil were $1,711 would receive from the state 
aid fund exactly as much as it has contributed, and so would break even. Those counties whose economic 
resources were less than $1,711 per pupil would receive more than they paid in; there are 52 counties of 
this sort. Tioga, the poorest county, would raise a total of $23.62 per pupil. Of this amount $5.30 would 
be paid in to the state, but the county would receive from the state a total of $57.66 per pupil, more than 
ten times as much as was contributed. New York City and Albany, Erie, Monroe, Nassau, and Westches¬ 
ter Counties would receive less than they contributed to the fund. Westchester, the richest county, 
would collect in school taxes $97.99 per pupil. Of this amount $22.01 per pupil would be contributed to 
the state and nothing would be received in return. 

Were it to be decided to expend $100 or $125 or any other amount per pupil, the tax rates for school 
purposes would be changed in corresponding degree, but the ratio between the tax retained locally and that 
paid in to the state to be redistributed would remain the same. 

This illustration is thrown into this form with the expressed intention of avoiding the inference that the 
Commission desires to suggest that the local tax be levied on real estate. The Commission makes no recom¬ 
mendation regarding the form of the tax system to be used in making the necessary draft upon economic 


resources. 


CHAPTER XIII 


THE SEPARATE FINANCING OF SCHOOLS 

Attention has been called to the fact that a community which is suf¬ 
ficiently strong economically and is possessed of a sufficiently efficient 
fiscal system, may find itself frustrated in its effort to secure funds to pay 
for an educational program it really wants because of the shortcomings of 
the arrangements provided for ascertaining the community’s desires on 
financial issues. 1 The vacillation to be found in the recent history of school 
legislation in the State of New York would raise the question sharply as to 
whether the machinery of representation has been operating efficiently. 
The adoption of the township as the unit of rural school organization in one 
year only to be swept away the next, and the opposition which has devel¬ 
oped to the continuation school law even before it has come completely into 
operation are instances. Too little care is taken to make sure that pro¬ 
posals harmonize with the wishes of those who must after all make the 
sacrifices to pay the bills. 2 This is a broad question of political science 
which cannot be fully discussed in this report. There is one aspect of it, 
however, which is of such particular interest at the present time in the 
State of New York that the Commission has felt justified in gathering the 
fullest possible data bearing upon it. This is the question of the so-called 
“ fiscal independence ” of school boards. 

The final decision with respect to the amount of money to be spent for 
education rests in the majority of the cities of the State of New York with 
the board of education. 3 

1 That the public is becoming conscious of the importance of greater accuracy, in determining what the 
community wants in taxation and public expenditures, is indicated by a recent editorial in the Saturday 
Evening Post wdiich concluded with the declaration that “Taxation without representation is no worse than 
taxation with misrepresentation.” 

2 The possible repressive economic effects of distributing voting power in such a manner that control 
rests with persons who are not conscious taxpayers is mentioned in Chapter X, p. 155. 

3 Boards of education in the State of New York have absolute powers to fix appropriations in the cities of 
Auburn, Batavia, Canandaigua, Cohoes, Corning, Dunkirk, Geneva, Mechanicville, Middletown, North 
Tonawanda, Norwich, Ogdensburg, Olean, Port Jervis, Rome, Saratoga Springs, Sherrill, Tonawanda, 
Utica, and Watervliet. Oswego is in dispute. The mayor, legislative body, or board of estimate may veto 
items in the school budget in Amsterdam, Cortland, Fulton, Glen Cove, Gloversville, Johnstown, Kingston, 
Mount Vernon, New Rochelle, Oneida, Oneonta, Plattsburgh, Rensselaer, Salamanca, Watertown, and 
White Plains. Such vetoed items may be restored, however, by a two-thirds, four-fifths, or unanimous 
vote of the board of education. Final authority to fix the school budget, excepting salaries, rests with the 
board of estimate and apportionment or the legislative body or both in Albany, Beacon, Binghamton, Buf¬ 
falo, Elmira, Niagara Falls, Poughkeepsie, Rochester, Schenectady, Syracuse, Troy, and Yonkers. In 
the City of New York the Board of Estimate has the right to fix any appropriations in excess of an 
amount equal to 4.9 mills on every dollar of assessed valuation of real and personal property of the city. 
In Hudson the legislative body has power when the amount exceeds an amount equal to $40.00 per pupil. 

New York State Bureau of Municipal Information, Report Number 712. 

177 


178 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


In the larger cities of the state, however, this decision rests with the 
board of estimate and apportionment, or with the city legislative body, 
or with both. The issue of the separate financing of schools by municipal 
boards of education has become acute in the larger cities on account of the 
two per cent tax limitation imposed by the constitution of the state. Even 
before this difficulty arose a most lively discussion of the issue had been 
carried on by such groups as the official organization of the mayors and 
comptrollers of the state on the one hand, and the boards of education 
and superintendents of schools on the other. 

The issue is not confined to the cities of the State of New York. 
All over the country the practice varies and argument is carried on most 
vigorously. Throughout the discussion of the problem in this report, 
the cities in which the boards of education have complete control of their 
own finances will be called independent. In these communities, the boards 
of education levy the tax, collect the money, and expend it according to 
their own best judgment. The financing of schools is entirely separate 
from any control by other municipal authorities. In those communities in 
which the board of education presents its recommendations to a reviewing 
authority who determines the amount to be expended, and in many cases 
the amounts for each separate item of the budget, the board of education 
is called dependent. 1 

In order to secure data upon which to base conclusions with regard 
to the results of separate financing, as over against dependence upon a 
general fiscal authority, the Inquiry utilized data from 377 cities reporting 
to the National Committee for Chamber of Commerce Cooperation with 
the Public Schools. 2 

Information concerning the number of pupils in average daily attend¬ 
ance was secured from the United States Bureau of Education, while data 
concerning the issuance of school bonds and bonded indebtedness were 
secured in part from the Commercial and Financial Chronicle. 3 Figures 
from this source were found to check very closely with those furnished to 
the National Committee for Chamber of Commerce Cooperation with the 
Public Schools. 

It is important to note that data were available for cities of all sizes. Of 
the twenty-five cities whose population exceeds 250,000, twenty-two are 

1 A more complete report on this problem is issued by the Educational Finance Inquiry Commission under 
the title, “Fiscal Administration of City School Systems.” In this more complete report, the cities which 
do not fall in either of these distinctive groups are classified as “special.” In this group are placed those 
cities whose school budgets are passed upon by a county commission or other especially constituted author¬ 
ity, such as the town meeting in New England, or the county authority in Ohio, Oklahoma, and other 
western states. 

2 These data were made available by an inquiry conducted by the National Committee for Chamber of 
Commerce Cooperation with the Public Schools, G. D. Strayer, Chairman, Teachers College, Columbia 
University, New York City. Published by American City Bureau, New York City. July, 1921. 

3 “Commercial and Financial Chronicle,” State and City Section, Part I, New England, Middle, and 
Central States, June 25, 1921, and Part II, Western, Pacific, and Southern States, December 31, 1921. 


THE SEPARATE FINANCING OF SCHOOLS 


179 


included in this study. A somewhat smaller percentage of cities between 
100,000 and 250,000 population are included, approximately four-fifths 
of them furnishing data. Fifty per cent of the cities between 30,000 and 
100,000 are included; and thirty-five per cent of those between 8,000 and 
30,000. 

The cities were, as well, scattered throughout the various sections of the 
country. In order to make comparison among the various cities, it is 
necessary to use some measure of the central tendency or practice for each 
group with respect to the various items under consideration. In general, 
three such measures were used. First the “ average ” or arithmetic mean ; 
second, the median or middle case; and third, a measure obtained by 
combining the totals for a given group of cities into a single total and treat¬ 
ing all the cities in that group as if they were one city or constituted a 
single school system. 

A careful analysis of the total income for school purposes in the 377 
cities from which data were available was made in an attempt to discover 
whether any significant difference existed among the several groups in the 
percentage of income derived from various sources. The income of each 
school system was distributed under five heads according as it was derived 
from (1) the state, (2) the federal government, (3) the county, (4) local 
taxation, and (5) from all other or non-revenue miscellaneous sources. 
These amounts were converted into percentages of the total income. 

Table 51, which follows, gives the middle case, or mean city, in each of 
the three groups — independent, dependent, and special. 


TABLE 51 

SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES 
Median 1 Percentage of Receipts from Each of Five Sources, 1920 


Cities 

State 

Federal 

Government 

County 

Local Taxes 

Miscellane¬ 

ous 

Independent. . . 

10.4% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

77.2% 

5.4% 

Special .... 

8.3 

0.0 

0.0 

69.6 

5.1 

Dependent . 

12.4 

0.0 

0.0 

72.1 

3.8 

All cities .... 

10.1 

0.0 

0.0 

74.2 

5.3 


1 Middle case. 


The appearance of the zeros for federal and county receipts is due to the 
fact that more than one-half of the cities show no receipts from these 
sources. The differences in the median percentages of income derived 
from the state by the three classes of cities are probably not significant. 
The amount of money made available to local communities through state 
subventions is probably in no way affected by the fiscal status of municipal 
























180 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


boards of education. That so large a proportion of the total amount of 
money necessary to finance municipal school systems is derived from local 
taxation gives added importance to the question of the fiscal status of the 
board of education. 

A careful study was made to discover whether or not the percentage of 
the total budget raised locally might be considered significant in relation 
to the fiscal authority and control of the local school budget. The av¬ 
erage percentage raised locally was found to be 73 for the independent 
cities, and 72 for the dependent cities. It seems improbable that so small 
a difference in the averages could properly be interpreted as due to the 
form of fiscal control. In order to make certain whether or not it was 
significant, the reliability of the difference between these averages was 
computed. 1 


1 Two elements must be taken into consideration in determining the reliability of statistical measures 
of central tendency. One is the wideness of the dispersion or scattering of the individual measures about 
the average, or other measure of central tendency, for the whole group of measures. The greater this 
dispersion, the less reliable the average obtained from that particular group of measures. 

The second element of importance in determining the reliability of such a measure is the number of 
cases or individual measures which were the basis for the computation for the average or other measure of 
central tendency. Other things being equal, the greater the number of cases the more reliable is the average 
computed from the individual measures for these cases. 

To illustrate — let it be supposed that the average for each of two groups of 100 cities is 70 per cent; 
suppose that in the first group all of the individual measures lie between 67 and 73 per cent inclusive; 
suppose that in the second group the one hundred different percentages range all the way from 30 to 95 
per cent. It is obvious that the true average of the first group is more likely to be the 70 per cent obtained, 
or that it will fall between 68 and 72 per cent than it is true that the average of the second group shall fall 
between the same narrow limits. A very little shifting of the measures in the widely scattered group 
might easily pull the average down to 65 per cent, or increase it to 74 per cent, but it would require a more 
complete shifting of measures in the closely grouped distribution to produce a like effect. 

The other element entering into the reliability of the average, the number of cases, can be easily under¬ 
stood. If we suppose that in two distributions of the percentages under discussion in which we again obtain 
an average of 70 per cent for each group, that in each case the individual measures range from 60 to 80 per 
cent, but that in the first distribution there are ten cities represented, and in the second one hundred cities, 
any one would reach the conclusion without argument that the figure obtained from averaging the one 
hundred cities would be more reliable. In the case in which we have only ten measures a slight shifting 
may cause a considerable displacement in the obtained average, while an entirely similar shifting of the same 
number of cases in the second group would make very little difference. 

For those versed in statistics the following formula may prove useful: If N A be the number of cases and 


S D. be the Standard Deviation of Group A, and N _ and S.D. _ the corresponding measures for Group B, 
A a a 

the P.E. of the obtained difference between the averages of the two groups is computed by the following 

formula: 


P.E. of difference of average = 0.6745 


v 


(S.D. 


N 


L ) 2 iS.D. B 
+ ' 


) 2 


N, 


In case of the percentage of the revenue derived from local sources the P.E. of the difference between 
the average percentages for the independent and dependent cities is indicated as follows: 

A*. - °- 6745 V ! ftf+ 1 If = 16 Per Cent - 

The average percentages obtained from the two groups were — independent cities 73.1 and dependent 
cities 72.4 per cent. Therefore, the difference in the averages obtained is 

(73.1 - 72.4) ± 1.6 = 0.7 ± 1.6. 

The obtained difference of 0.7 per cent is too small to be considered significant when we have this measure 
of the probable error of the difference of the averages found to be 1.6 per cent. If the difference between 
the averages had been three times as much as 1.6 per cent or greater than that it would commonly have 
been considered large enough to have called the difference in the averages significant. 








THE SEPARATE FINANCING OF SCHOOLS 


181 


The averages actually obtained were 73.1 per cent for the independent 
cities, and 72.4 per cent for the dependent cities. The reliability of these 
measures, as determined by carefully considered statistical methods, is 
best represented by saying that the difference of .7 per cent in the aver¬ 
ages obtained is subject to a correction of plus or minus 1.6 per cent. In 
other words, it is not a significant difference. 

If the difference in the obtained average had been three times, or more 
than three times, as great as the measure of reliability of the difference 
obtained, that is, if the difference of the obtained averages had been three 
times 1.6 per cent, or 4.8 per cent, or more, then there would have been 
justification for the conclusion that the obtained averages indicated a 
significant difference with respect to the percentage of total revenues 
derived from local sources in dependent and independent cities. The 
same technique was applied in the case of a great variety of other measures. 
The conclusions arrived at will be stated without again presenting the 
method employed. 1 

One of the most important findings recorded in the following table is 
that the total expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance for all 
school purposes shows practically no difference as between the cities whose 
schools are separately financed and those in which the school budget is 
determined by the general municipal fiscal authority. The investigation 
shows conclusively that the separate financing of schools has not resulted 
in extravagance. 

The significant differences with respect to fiscal administration are such 
as to leave the question of the desirability of one form of administration 
as over against the other to be determined by other considerations. The 
cities in which the boards of education are in complete control of the 
finances of the school system, including the right to levy taxes, show a 
larger tax rate, a larger percentage of the total municipal tax rate devoted 
to schools, a larger expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance for 
general control, for maintenance of plant, for fixed charges, capital outlay, 
and debt service, than do the dependent. On the other hand, the com¬ 
munities in which the boards of education are dependent upon the general 
municipal authority show a larger bonded indebtedness per capita, and a 
larger expenditure for instructional service. The technique employed 
in determining which of these differences were significant was applied as 
well to certain educational factors reported in Dr. G. W. Frasier’s study 


1 A special inquiry was undertaken with respect to the limitations, in the rate of tax which may be levied, 
imposed upon boards of education that enjoy fiscal independence. Reports were received from 94 cities. 
Of the group 77.7 per cent reported a limit fixed by law, while 28.8 per cent having a legal maximum reported 
that they were now levying a tax equal to the maximum permitted to them. That more than 70 per cent 
of the boards of education limited by law in the amount of tax which they could levy are financing the 
schools on a levy lower than that permitted by law is to be interpreted as definitely establishing the fact 
that they have accepted full responsibility for the financing of schools in their several communities. They 
are not merely operating upon the basis of a tax levy established for them. 


182 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

entitled “ Fiscal Control of City School Systems.” It was found that 
the independent cities showed a greater percentage of 16- and 17-year old 
children enrolled in the schools ; that they provided a larger percentage of 

TABLE 52 

DIFFERENCES FOUND BETWEEN CITIES HAVING INDEPENDENT 
AND DEPENDENT BOARDS OF EDUCATION IN TERMS OF 
CERTAIN OBJECTIVE MEASURES 

275 American Cities Reporting for the Year 1919-1920 



Average 

FOR 

Independent 

Cities 

Average 

for 

Dependent 

Cities 

Critical 
Ratio of 
Difference 
between 
Averages 

A. Significant Differences 

1. Financial Factors 

a. Percentage of real valuation at which 
taxable property is assessed . . . 

69.1 

84.6 

9.7 

b. School tax rates per $100 real valua¬ 
tion . .. 

$0,915 

$0.77 

3.4 

c. Percentage which school tax rate is 
of total municipal tax rate . . . 

41.4 

33.3 

5.8 

d. Municipal bonded indebtedness out¬ 
standing per capita. 

$43.46 

$56.92 

4.8 

e. Percentage which school bonded debt 
is of total municipal bonded debt . 

38.1 

31.2 

3.7 

/. Percentage which total municipal 
bonded debt is of total real valuation 
of taxable property. 

3.5 

4.1 

3.0 

g. General control, expenditure per 
pupil in A. D. A. 

$3.08 

$2.53 

4.6 

h. Instructional service, per pupil . . 

$45.19 

$51.54 

4.6 

i. Teachers’ salaries, per pupil . . . 

$38.25 

$42.97 

4.1 

j. Maintenance of plant, per pupil. . 

$3.33 

$2.80 

3.1 

k. Fixed charges, per pupil .... 

$1.10 

$0.50 

15.0 

Z. Capital outlay, per pupil .... 

$5.64 

$3.91 

10.2 

m. Debt service, per pupil .... 

$9.22 

$4.97 

5.6 

n. Percentage of increased cost of living 
from 1913-14 to 1919-20 that was 
met by increased salaries for women 
elementary teachers. 

76.3 

63.1 

3.0 

2. Educational Factors 

a. Percentage of sixteen and seventeen 
year old children in school.... 

41.8 

32.9 

4.4 

b. Percentage of pupils having sixty or 
more square feet of playground each 

58.4 

39.7 

4.5 

c. Percentage of women elementary 
teachers having six or more years of 
training above eighth grade . . . 

69.7 

77.9 

3.2 

d. Percentage of children enrolled who 
attend school all day, and in ade¬ 
quate buildings owned by the city . 

93.2 

88.1 

3.4 



















THE SEPARATE FINANCING OF SCHOOLS 


183 


TABLE 52 ( Continued ) 



Average 

for 

Independent 

Cities 

Average 

FOR 

Dependent 

Cities 

Critical 
Ratio of 
Difference 
between 
Averages 

B. Differences Probably Not Significant 

1. Financial Factors 

a. Percentage of total school revenue 
derived from local taxation . . . 

73.1 

72.4 

0.5 

b . Real valuation of taxable property 
per capita . 

$1,367 

$1,509 

2.1 

c . Total municipal tax rates per $100 
real valuation. 

$2.24 

$2.34 

1.3 

d. School bonded indebtedness per 
pupil in A. D. A. 

$99.73 

$116.03 

2.2 

e . Percentage which school bonded 
debt is of real valuation of taxable 
property . 

1.3 

1.2 

0.8 

/. Total expenditure for all school pur¬ 
poses, per pupil in A. D. A. . . . 

$83.28 

$84.29 

0.3 

g . Current expense for schools, per 
pupil . 

$63.04 

$67.49 

2.4 

h . Operation of plant, per pupil . . 

$8.51 

$8.54 

0.1 

i . Auxiliary agencies, per pupil . . . 

$1.34 

$1.58 

1.9 

j . Health service, per pupil .... 

$0.49 

$0.51 

0.5 

2. Educational Factors 

a. Percentage of elementary classes 
having fewer than forty pupils en- 
rolled . 

65.7 

69.8 

1.3 


their pupils with sixty or more square feet of playground space each; 
and that a larger percentage of the children enrolled attended school all 
day in adequate school buildings owned by the city. It appeared that the 
dependent cities had a somewhat larger percentage of women elementary 
school teachers who had six or more years of training beyond the grade of 
the elementary school. 

In the light of the evidence made available by this inquiry, the separate 
financing of municipal school systems must be considered on ground other 
than that of the cost to the community, since the costs of schools admin¬ 
istered under the two forms of organization are approximately equal. 


















CHAPTER XIV 

PROBLEMS OF ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION 

Budgetary Procedure in the State of New York 

The General Education Law of the State of New York provides that the 
board of education of each school district shall present at the annual 
meeting a detailed statement in writing of the money which will be required 
for the ensuing year for school purposes.” 1 It is also provided after the 
presentation of such statement or estimate, the question shall be taken 
upon voting the necessary taxes to meet the estimated expenditures, and 
when demanded by any voter present, the question shall be taken upon 
each item separately. . . .” 2 

Incorporated villages or cities in which union free schools shall be es¬ 
tablished “ shall have the power, and it shall be their duty, to raise, from 
time to time, by tax, to be levied upon all the real and personal property 
in said city or village, as by law provided for the defraying of the ex¬ 
penses of its municipal government, such sum as the board of education 
established therein shall declare necessary for teachers’ salaries and the 
ordinary contingent expenses of supporting the schools of said district. 

“ The sums so declared necessary shall be set forth in a detailed state¬ 
ment in writing, addressed to the corporate authorities by the board of 
education, giving the various purposes of anticipated expenditure, and 
the amount necessary for each; and the said corporate authorities shall 
have no power to withhold the sums so declared to be necessary ; and such 
corporate authorities as aforesaid shall have power, and it shall be their 
duty to raise, from time to time, by tax as aforesaid, any such further sum 
to be set forth in a detailed statement in writing, addressed to the cor¬ 
porate authorities by the board of education, giving the various purposes 
of the proposed expenditure, and the amount necessary for each which may 
have been or which may hereafter be authorized by a majority of the voters 
of such union free school district present and voting at any special dis¬ 
trict meeting duly convened. ...” 3 

In like manner, in the cities of the State of New York operating under 
special statute and charter provisions, the board of education is required 
to prepare a budget and to submit it to various reviewing authorities. 

1 Education Law, July 1, 1921, Section 323. 

2 Education Law, July 1, 1921, Section 324. 

3 Education Law, July 1, 1921, Section 327. 

184 


PROBLEMS OF ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION 185 


In a great majority of the cities of the state, the board of education 
exercises final authority as to the amounts that shall be expended for 
schools. 1 

The general law of the State of New York provides that estimated ex¬ 
penditures be made in three divisions—(1) salaries, (2) incidental and 
contingent expenses, and (3) capital outlay and debt service. Under 
each of these general heads are listed detailed items for which estimates 
shall be made. The budget for the City of Rochester gives a classifica¬ 
tion of expenditures by character, function, and object. These items are 
conveniently grouped, making a rapid analysis possible. Neither in the 
general law of the state nor in the practice of most of the school boards, 
are income and work programs included as a part of the budgetary proce¬ 
dure. They must, one supposes, enter in some degree into the thought of 
those who develop the estimates of expenditure. Sound procedure would 
require that both the estimates of income and the work programs be as 
clearly and definitely placed before the reviewing body and before the 
electorate as are the estimates of expenditures. 

The inability of the very great majority of communities in the State 
of New York to report accurately their expenditures for such general 
functions as instruction, maintenance of plant, operation of plant, and the 
like, segregated with respect to certain divisions of the school systems — 
kindergartens, elementary schools, junior high schools, high schools, vo¬ 
cational schools, — is evidence of a failure to keep the accounts necessary 
for efficient budgetary procedure. If budget estimates are to be accepted 
as valid, they should be based upon a careful analysis of costs that have 
been incurred in the years which have preceded. It is only with such a 
sound basis in cost accounting that reliable estimates can be made with 
respect to contemplated expenditures. 

Salary schedules adopted commonly throughout the state, on the other 
hand, have contributed in very considerable measure to the development 
of budgetary estimates which approach the actual needs of the school 
system. If in connection with the salary schedule adequate estimates of 
the turnover in this type of service, together with the levels in the salary 
schedule at which new teachers enter the service, are coupled with a care¬ 
ful study of the expectancy with respect to the enrolment for the ensuing 
year, a large percentage of the total budget may be estimated with a reason¬ 
able degree of accuracy. 

Estimates of the cost of other, personal service such as clerks, engineers, 
janitors, can be estimated with as clear or greater assurance than the esti¬ 
mates for teachers’ salaries. If the account is sufficiently adequate to 
show unit costs for the various divisions of the school system, it will like¬ 
wise be possible to estimate with a very small percentage of error the cost 

1 See p. 177, footnote 3. 


186 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


of instructional service, supplies, and the materials used in the maintenance 
and operation of the school plant. 

An interesting sidelight is thrown upon present budgetary procedure 
when the facts with respect to cash balances on hand are examined. At 
the beginning of the school year 1920, there were cash balances on hand 
amounting to more than 43 millions, or about 25 per cent of the entire 
amount available for schools during that school year. Upon investiga¬ 
tion most of the larger balances were found to represent the proceeds of 
bond sales not yet disbursed for the buildings for which they were intended. 
But this was not true in all cases where the cash balances were large. In 
the City of Gloversville, for example, a cash balance had been accumulated 
over a period of years which was so large that no school tax at all was nec¬ 
essary in 1920. A similar situation was found to exist in a half dozen 
rural school districts, mostly contract districts which sent their pupils to 
schools in other districts and had no charges to meet except tuition. One 
district had a balance sufficiently great to meet the total estimated ex¬ 
penses for three years in advance, without taking into account the sub¬ 
stantial subsidies which it received from the state. Such cases are dis¬ 
tinctly exceptions. On the other hand, a large number of districts re¬ 
ported no cash balance at all. Yet the small size of the temporary debt 
and the fact that only two districts reported deficits — in both cases neg¬ 
ligible in amount — raise a presumption that the school boards are very 
generous in their budget estimates. 1 

In most cases there appears to be no occasion for large cash balances 
at the beginning of the school year, taxes being collectible early in the 
period, before any large disbursements are made. Certainly there is no 
justification for depriving taxpayers of the use of their money for periods 
of several years before it is actually needed for school purposes. 

Sound budgetary procedure requires not only accurate estimates of 
costs, but also estimates of income and a statement of the work program 
to be followed. It is only as income is balanced against estimated costs 


1 A fairly comprehensive view of the situation regarding cash balances is given in the following statement 
of the average relationship between cash balances and total funds available for the year in the sample 
studied. (See p. 104.) 



Median 1 Per Cent 

Arith. Mean 2 Per Cent 

County aggregate including New York 
City. 

8.7 

24.9 

County aggregate excluding New York 
City. 

8.4 

12.7 

City, including New York City .... 

8.9 

28.4 

City, excluding New York City .... 

8.6 

14.3 

Villages over 4,500 . 

2.5 

8.4 

Union Schools. 

4.8 

8.6 

Rural Schools. 

6.9 

10.1 


1 Middle case. 


2 Average. 
















PROBLEMS OF ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION 187 


that it becomes clear that any particular program can be financed out of 
the revenues available. It is of the greatest importance that budgetary 
procedure be improved; that boards of education adopt budgets which 
limit their appropriations to their income, and that they confine their ex¬ 
penditures to the appropriations voted. With such procedure established, 
the electorate of the several communities involved may be expected to 
show a more intelligent interest in the program of education decided upon, 
and to be more willing to face the issue involved in the adequate support of 
their schools. 


School Accounting 

As has already been indicated in the discussion of budgetary procedure, 
there is great need for more adequate accounting in most of the school 
systems of the State of New York. The State Department of Education 
has made available a system of accounting and has provided instruction 
for the installation of this system. If all of the communities within the 
State of New York followed the directions furnished, it would be possible 
to establish unit costs. 

Such an analysis of the expenses of school systems would prove most 
helpful to the local administrative officers in the financing of their school 
systems. The reports based upon such accounting are essential to the 
development of any adequate state supervision or responsibility for the 
financing of schools. It is apparent, from the failure of a large majority 
of the cities of the state to make adequate returns from the forms 
based upon the state system of accounting, that most of the school 
authorities have not considered it necessary or expedient to establish as 
adequate accounting as that recommended by the State Department of 
Education. 

The administration of schools in the smaller villages and rural areas 
by lay boards of education, without adequate professional administrative 
service, precludes the possibility of accurate accounting for these areas. 
Only as larger units of administration are organized can we hope for the 
development of satisfactory accounting and of satisfactory budgetary pro¬ 
cedure in these areas. 

Sound administrative procedure calls for the development of adequate 
accounting in all school areas within the state. It is only as administra¬ 
tive officers or boards of education know with exactness the cost of any par¬ 
ticular part of the educational program that they are competent to pass 
upon the question of its continuance or development. Without a very 
much more adequate system than is now commonly practiced, it is not 
possible for school authorities to discover the waste which may exist within 
the whole or some part of the school system, or to plan adequately the 
program of work to be undertaken in future years. 


188 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Financing Capital Outlays 

In cities with coterminous school-district and city boundaries, school 
bond issues are subject to the same limitations as other city bond issues. 
In cities whose school-district and city boundaries are not coterminous, 
in union free school districts, and in rural districts, school bonds aie issued 
on a majority vote of the electorate. In districts with an assessed valua¬ 
tion in excess of $500,000 the amount of such issues may not exceed fifteen 
per cent of such assessed valuation, except upon the vote of two-thirds 
of the electorate. No legal limitation is placed on the amount of the 
issues of other districts, but the purposes are restricted to capital outlays 
and refunding. 1 The rate of interest is limited to six per cent and bonds 
may not be sold below par. 

Statements have been made in an earlier chapter 1 regarding the ex¬ 
tent to which new plant has been financed from current expenses. Table 
53 shows the relationship of the school bonded debt to real estate values, 
to the values of school property, and to total bonded indebtedness for all 
purposes, in the cities, villages, and towns in 1920. 

TABLE 53 

GROSS BONDED DEBT FOR EDUCATION COMPARED WITH FULL 
VALUE OF TAXABLE REAL ESTATE, VALUE OF SCHOOL 
PROPERTY, AND BONDED DEBT FOR ALL PURPOSES — 

CITIES, VILLAGES, AND TOWNS —STATE OF 
NEW YORK, 1920 



New York 
City 

Other Cities 

Villages and 
Towns 

Ratio of bonded debt for education to full value of 




taxable real estate. 

Ratio of bonded debt for education to value of 

1.4% 

1.1% 

.5% 

school property. 

Ratio of bonded debt for education to total debt 

76.3 

37.8 

23.42 

for all purposes. 

8.0 

1.8 

27.8 


Data concerning the relationship of net indebtedness to the value of 
school property in 1920 are presented in Table 54. 

It has not been possible to check adequately the figures for the value 
of school property; but from such evidence as is available, the valua¬ 
tions seem to be low. The valuations given in the report of the State 
Tax Commission are very much lower, but on the other hand, valuations 
of buildings made by insurance men run about thirty per cent higher. 
This means that the ratio of the outstanding debt to the value of school 
property as given in the table is high, rather than low. It is clear that in 

1 See p. 106. 




















PROBLEMS OF ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION 189 


the aggregate the school property of the state is not bonded to an extent 
which approaches closely the theoretical limit. Taking the state as a 
whole, the outstanding bonded debt in 1920 amounted to 56 per cent of 
the value of sites and buildings. If cash balances are subtracted from the 
outstanding bonds, the percentage drops to 35. However, there exist 
particular cases where borrowing has been carried to an extremely high 
point. The City of New York is more heavily bonded for school purposes 
than other cities according to all three methods of measurement used in 
Table 53. The village and rural schools have utilized their credit rel¬ 
atively little to finance their operations. 


TABLE 54 

RATIO OF NET INDEBTEDNESS 1 TO TOTAL VALUE OF SCHOOL 
PROPERTY —STATE OF NEW YORK, 1920 



High Case 

Middle Case 

Low Case 

Arithmetic 

Average 

County aggregate. 

58.8% 

12.4% 

None 

35.1% 

City. 

75.2 

23.2 

None 

39.8 

Villages over 4,500 . 

76.3 

27.5 

None 

30.8 

Union School. 

78.7 

.8 

None 

21.0 

Rural School. 

1435.0 2 

None 

None 

12.1 


1 Bonded plus temporary, with sinking funds and cash balances subtracted. 

2 There are three cases of rural school districts which report a net debt in excess of property values, with 
percentages of 1435, 235, and 114 respectively. In 1921, the first of these reports no debt at all and the 
other two report debts of approximately 80 per cent and 50 per cent of the value of school property. These 
are apparently, therefore, not cases of excessive indebtedness, but rather districts which were erecting new 
buildings and had not yet changed the valuation in the report. In each of the three cases there is a large 
increase in the value of property reported in 1921. 

Table 55 gives the bonded debt per child of school age for the various 
classes of districts in 1920. It is of interest to note the heavy debt of 
villages as compared with union school and rural school districts. 


TABLE 55 

BONDED DEBT PER CHILD OF SCHOOL AGE —STATE OF NEW 

YORK, 1920 



High Case 

Middle Case 

Low Case 

Arithmetic 
Average 1 

County aggregate. 

103.74 

17.35 

None 

71.51 

City. 

178.85 

32.41 

None 

94.36 2 

Villages over 4,500 . 

437.61 

42.43 

None 

66.15 

Union School. 

341.46 

4.37 

None 

42.41 

Rural School 3 . 

700.00 

None 

None 

15.70 


1 The arithmetic average is much higher than the median or middle case because it is greatly influenced 


by the large debt occurring in a few cities and districts. 

2 The average for New York City is $96.49 and for other cities $54.83. 

2 More than three-fourths of the rural schools studied reported no bonded debt. 














































190 FINANCING OF EDUCATION IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK 


It is possible for municipalities and for school districts in the State of 
New York to issue bonds under either the serial or the sinking fund plan. 1 
The net cost to the community of serial bonds is the same as the cost of 
so-called straight or sinking fund bonds, provided the sinking fund earns 
interest at the same rate that the bonds bear. In point of fact, however, 
municipal sinking funds are not always maintained at this high degree of 
efficiency. It has sometimes happened that through mismanagement not 
only have interest rates been too low on the sinking fund as it is accumu¬ 
lated, but the temptation to borrow from the sinking fund for current ex¬ 
penditures has sometimes been too strong to be resisted. From the ad¬ 
ministrative standpoint, as well as from the strictly fiscal point of view, 
it would probably be best under existing conditions to require that all 
bonds issued be of the serial type. 

Insurance 

Fire losses constitute a relatively small item in the general charge for 
capital outlay during any one year. Over a period of years for an area 
the size of New York, this loss becomes considerable. Educational insti- 
tutions in the United States lost more than twenty-six million dollars worth 
of property by fire in the period 1916-1920 inclusive. If such losses are 
avoided or reduced, it will be because fires are prevented. That the prob¬ 
ability of destruction of school buildings by fire varies with the type of struc¬ 
ture and with the fire protection offered by the community, is indicated 
by the variation in rate among the different types of school units within 
the State of New York. The middle case three-year term rates per $100 
for insurance of school buildings in the State of New York are as follows: 


Cities of the second class .... $1.09 

Cities of the third class . . . . 1.00 

Villages over 4,500 . 1.00 

Union free school districts . . . 1.18 to 1.46 

Rural schools.1.50 


A wide variation exists in the rate charged, determined by the class of 
construction, the provision made for preventing or extinguishing fires, and 
the location of buildings. If losses are to be avoided, it will be because 
fireproof buildings are constructed, because old buildings are carefully 
renovated and fire prevention equipment installed, and because there is 
an insistence upon that kind of good housekeeping which reduces fire risks. 

1 “Under the provisions of the Education Law, sections 480 and 877, subd. 1-c, bonds may be issued for 
the general purposes of the acquisition of school sites and the erection of school buildings. There is no 
statutory limitation as to the duration of these bonds found in the Education Law except as issued by a 
common school district in which the limitation is twenty years from the date of the meeting at which the 
bonds were voted. It is customary to issue such bonds for periods varying from twenty to forty years 
although we recommend that in union free school districts the bonds should not extend beyond a period 
of thirty years.” 

(From a letter of Irwin Esmond, Assistant Counsel, the University of the State of New York, State 
Department of Education, Albany, March 9, 1923.) 






PROBLEMS OF ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION 191 


A considerable gain would be made if heating plants were always inclosed 
within fireproof walls, entered only by self-closing fireproof doors; if 
basements, shops, laboratories, and other spaces where the fire risk is 
greatest were equipped with sprinklers; and if small and easily manipu¬ 
lated fire extinguishers were made available at frequent intervals through¬ 
out the school buildings. 

For the individual community, unless it be a large city, fire insur¬ 
ance in the commercial companies should be carried. If the sort of fire 
prevention which has been suggested were commonly practiced, the rate 
of insurance on school buildings might be expected to be reduced. But 
even with the present rates, it is good administrative procedure for all 
except the larger communities to share the liability to loss with other com¬ 
munities over a large area by insuring their buildings. 

Codification of the Education Law 

During the course of its investigation the Commission has been impressed 
by the confused state of the education law. The difficulties involved in 
administering a school system are greatly increased when the legal pro¬ 
visions defining powers, duties, and limitations are not clearly stated. In 
the State of New York the law is in many respects not clear, not complete, 
and difficult of interpretation. As an illustration the reader is referred 
to the sections which purport to set forth the requirements with respect to 
the general educational program discussed on pages 22-28. The recodi¬ 
fication of the education law, which would simplify, clarify, and eliminate 
inconsistencies, would, in the opinion of the Commission, prove to be a 
substantial aid to efficient administration. 


INDEX 


Notes: 

1. Unless otherwise indicated, all references are to public (tax-supported) edu¬ 

cation and for the State of New York only. 

2. The terms federal, state, local, cities, villages, union schools, and the like, seldom 

occur as main heads. Material on them is to be sought in subdivisions of 
other items as expenditures, debts, and the like. 

3. Plain numbers as 35, 51 refer to pages; numbers preceded by T, as (T36), 

to tables; numbers preceded by D, as (Dl), to diagrams. 

4. A page reference less than 17 indicates a summary. 


Academic fund, quotas from, 99(T37) 
Academic quota, 99(T37) 

Academies, sectarian, grants to, 99(T37) 
Accounting, school, problems of, 187 
Accrued economic charge, totals for plant 
costs, 35(T3) 

Accrued economic cost, 

estimates of probable future, for all 
education, 122 
method of calculating, 82 
totals for all education, 4, 6, 7 
totals for public education, 38(T4) 
Adams, T. S., 158 

Additional teachers’ quota, 98, 99(T37) 
Administration, 

general state, cash disbursements for 
capital outlay, 6, 81(T26) 
of public education in the state, 
problems of, 13, 184(Chap. XIV) 
summary of, 3 
Adult education, 67-70 
Advertising, expenditures for, and edu¬ 
cation, 147 

Advisory committee, list of, iv 
Age limits for attendance at school, 
23,24(D1) 

Agricultural education, federal subven¬ 
tions to, total receipts and 
expenditures, 102(f.n.l) 
Agricultural extension work, coopera¬ 


tive, federal subventions to, 
95(T36) 

Agricultural research, value of, 144 
Agriculture, New York State College 
of, 96(f.n.2) 

Agriculture, United States Department 
of, federal subventions for 
education, 95(T36,f.n.2) 
Agriculture and mechanic arts, colleges 
of, federal subventions to, 
95(T36) 

Alfred University, 26 
Algebra, instruction costs in high 
schools, 66(T20) 

American City Bureau, 178(f.n.2) 
American Council on Education, iii, 
iv 

Americanization, program for, 27 
Americanization quota, 100(f.n.l6) 
Amortization of debt, account taken of, 
31(f.n.2) 

Angell, J. R., iv 

Annual accrued economic cost, see 
Accrued economic cost 
Apparatus and books, grants for, 
99(T37) 

Apportionment, supplementary, quota 
for, 99(T37) 

Appreciation in value of sites of school 
buildings, 80, 88 


INDEX 


193 


Arithmetic in elementary schools, cost 
by grades, 53(T14), 55(T15) 
Arts, sed Fine and practical arts 
Assessments, real estate. See also Taxes, 
per capita by type of district, 100(f.n.) 
rate on land values, boroughs of New 
York City, 90 
suggested reform of, 157 
Attendance, 
age limits of, 

cost of extending, 118 
program on, 23, 24(Dl) 
average daily, 
increase in, 138 
total by counties, 167(T48) 
high school, increase in percentage of 
population attending high 
school, 138(f.n.l) 

private and parochial schools, 
117(f.n.l) 

Automobile education, evening school 
instruction costs in, 69(T22) 

Balances, cash, totals for, 186(f.n.l) 
Bank-stock tax, 109, 114 
Blind, education of the, see Special 
education 

Boards of education, fiscal independence 
of, 177(Chap. XIII) 

Bond Buyer , The, 87 
Bonded debt, see Debt, bonded 
Bonds. See also Debt; and Indebted¬ 
ness, 

school, 

interest rates on, 89(T33),130(f.n.3) 
purposes for which actually issued, 
106(f.n.l) 

purposes for which legally issued, 
106 

serial, value of, 190 

Bookkeeping, instruction costs of, in 
high schools, 66(T20) 

Books and apparatus, grants for, 
99(T37) 

Brick buildings, percentage of all build¬ 
ings, 91(T34) 

Budgetary procedure in the State of New 
York, problems of, 184 
Building(s). See also Plant costs, 
age of, in New York City and rural 
areas, 83-87 
costs, variations in, 130 


life of, how determined, 82 
maintenance and repairs of, relation 
to current expenses, 31(f.n.l) 
type of construction, by kinds of 
districts, 91(T34) 

Buildings and equipment, 
depreciation in value of, 33, 80-91,117 
value of part worn out each year, 
35(T3) 

Burgess, W. R., 34(f.n.l) 

Business taxes, 11, 109, 113, 157-159 

California, state aid for schools in, 
161(f.n.) 

Capital outlay. See also Plant costs, 
cash disbursements for, 
all public education, 31, 32(D2), 
33(T2) 

types of education, by, 81(T26) 
cost for providing for all children in 
state on basis of legal re¬ 
quirements and higher stand¬ 
ards, 119 

cost per pupil for new construction, 
120(f.n.2) 
defined, 29 
increase in, 34 
problems of financing, 188 
Carnegie Corporation, iii 
Cash balances, totals for, 186(f.n.l) 

Cash disbursements, see Expenditures 
Cash expenditures, see Expenditures 
Chadsey, C. E., iv 

Chamber of Commerce Cooperation with 
the Public Schools, National 
Committee for, 178 

Charities and corrections, expenditures, 
net, 

percentage of total state and local 
governmental expenditures, 
153(T45), 154(D12) 
total state and local, 153(T45), 
154(D12) 

Chemistry, high school instruction costs 
of, 66(T20) 

Cities. See also Urban. (For material 
dealing with any particular 
phase of education in cities, 
e.g. elementary schools, look 
for cities as a subhead under 
the tables dealing with ele¬ 
mentary schools.) 


194 


INDEX 


Cities, classification of, 22(f.n.), 44(f.n.) 
revenues, percentages from various 
political divisions, classified 
according to fiscal independ¬ 
ence, 179(T51) 

variations in elementary school costs, 
44 

Citizens’ Conference on Education, iii 
City of New York, see New York City 
City school systems, separate financing 
of, 177(Chap. XIII) 

Clark, H. F., v 

Clock-hour costs in evening schools, 68 
College of the City of New York, 
fees from, included in miscellaneous 
revenue for public education, 
103 

place in state’s educational program, 26 
teacher training in, current expenses 
for, 73, 74(T25) 

College-education age period, 24(Dl) 
Colleges. See also Higher education, 
agriculture and mechanic arts, federal 
subventions to, 95(T36) 
minimum salaries for, 75(T25A) 
Commerce, see Chamber of Commerce 
Commercial work, instruction costs of, 
in high schools, 66(T20) 
Common school fund, amounts for vari¬ 
ous quotas and basis of dis¬ 
tribution, 99(T37) 

Common schools, 

cash disbursements for capital outlay, 
81(T26) 

definition of, 40(f.n.l) 

Commonwealth Fund, iii 
Compulsory education, program of, 23, 
24(D1) 

Compulsory school age, see Attendance 
Concrete block buildings, percentage of 
all buildings, 91(T34) 
Connecticut, salaries actually paid rural 
teachers and principals, 
78(T25C) 

Consolidated high school, program on, 27 
Continuation schools, 
attendance in future, probable, 
120(f.n.3) 

cost if legal requirements and higher 
standards were observed, 118 
enrolment in, 25 
program of, 23, 24(Dl) 


subventions for, federal, 
amount, 95(T36, f.n.5) 
state basis for distributing, D6 
Contracting districts, 

comparison of real estate valua¬ 
tions with expenditures and 
sources of revenue, 164(T46), 
165(T47) 

use of district quota, 98(f.n.4) 
Control of public education in the state, 
3 

Cooking, evening school instruction 
costs in, 69(T21) 

Cooper, H., v 

Cooperative agricultural extension work, 
federal subventions to, 
95(T36) 

Cooperative vocational work, federal 
subventions for, 
receipts for one year, 95(T36) 
total receipts and expenditures for 
five years, 102(f.n.l) 

Cornell University, 26, 96 
Corporation taxes, 11, 109, 113, 114, 157 
Corporations, public service, value of 
franchises, 132(T42, f.n.2) 
Corrections, see Charities and correc¬ 
tions 

Cosmetics, expenditures for, and educa¬ 
tion, 147 

Cost(s) of education. (For data on the 
cost of any particular kind 
of education, as elementary 
schools, look up that entry.) 
and its growth, total, 4, 29(Chap. Ill) 
increases in, probable future, 6, 7, 41, 
120, 121 

miscellaneous general, cash disburse¬ 
ments for, 6, 40(T5) 
summary of total, 4 
totals, 36-39 

totals for all education, present and 
probable future, 116(Chap. 
VIII) 

totals for schools of different grades, 
39-41 

Counties, 

debt, bonded school, per child of 
school age, 189(T55) 
percentage relation of net school 
indebtedness to total value 
of school property, 189(T54) 


INDEX 


195 


Counties, individually, 
income, taxable, 

per child in average daily attend¬ 
ance, 168(T49) 

per child of school age, 168(T49) 
per teacher, 168(T49) 
total, 167(T48) 

index of economic resources, 168(T49) 
percentage which income is of full 
value of real estate, 169(T50) 
real estate, taxable, full value of, 
per child of school age, 168(T49) 
per pupil in average daily attend¬ 
ance, 168(T49) 
per teacher, 168(T49) 
total, 167(T48) 

County system of schools, relation to 
state aid, 166 
Country, see Rural 

Crippled, education of the, see Special 
education 
Current expenses, 
aggregate, 29 
analyzed, 5, 42(Chap. IV) 
defined, 29 

defined as related to capital outlay, 
31(f.n.l) 

defined as related to interest, 42(f.n.l) 
increase, in actual dollars, 4, 30(T1) 
total for all education, 117 

Davenport, F. M., 156 
Davenport Legislative Committee, 110, 
114(f.ns. 3, 4), 159, 160 
Deaf, education of the, see Special edu¬ 
cation 

Debt. See also Bonds; and Indebted¬ 
ness, 

all governmental purposes, total, re¬ 
lation to bonded debt for 
education, 188(T53) 
amortization of, account taken of, 
31(f.n.2) 

bonded, for education, 
per child of school age, 189(T55) 
percentage of full value of taxable 
real estate, 188(T53) 
percentage of total debt for all 
purposes, 188(T53) 
percentage of value of school prop¬ 
erty, 188(T53) 
summary, 8, 9 


Delaware, state aid for schools in, 
161(f.n.) 

Depreciation in buildings and equip¬ 
ment, 33, 35(T3), 80-91, 117 
Disbursements, see Expenditures 
District quota, 98, 99(T37) 

Districts, school, 
number in state, 21 
number in state by classes, 163 
size of, as related to school support, 
161 

Diversion of educational support, 146, 
147 

Dollar, change in purchasing power of, 
5, 21, 136(f.n.l) 

Domestic science, see Home economics 
Drawing, instruction costs of, in high 
schools, 66(T20) 

Dressmaking, evening school instruction 
costs in, 69(T21) 

Economic limitations of educational 
expenditures, 12, 141 (Chap. 
X) 

Economic Research, National Bureau 
of, 131, 134(f.n.l), 136, 149 
Economic resources. See also Revenues, 
compared with educational expendi¬ 
tures, 11, 127(Chap. IX) 
correlations with school expenditures, 
173 

correlations with state apportionment, 
173 

index of, 168(T49), 171 
formula for, 172 

Economies in high schools, caution on 
thinking will come from 
reducing curricula, 67(f.n.l) 
Education law, problem of codification 
of, 191 

Educational Finance Inquiry, 

list of Commission members, (inside 
front cover) 

list of publications, (inside back cover) 
purpose of, 3, 19-21 

Educational product, character of, 141 
Electrical education, evening school 
instruction costs in, 69(T22) 
Elementary School Costs in the State of 
New York (Educational Fi¬ 
nance Inquiry publication), 
48(f.n.3) 


196 


INDEX 


Elementary schools, 

cost of higher grades, 138(f.n.l) 
current expenses of, 43-58 
enrolment, 
actual, 25 
increase percent, 5 

evening school cost for elementary 
school work, 68(f.n.l) 
grade costs for regular teachers, each 
grade, 57(T16) 

salaries actually paid, 77(T25B) 
salaries in, legal minimum, 75(T25A) 
total cost of, 40(T5) 
training of teachers for, 26 
Elementary and high schools com¬ 
bined, 

cash disbursements for, 5 
cost of furnishing one day’s schooling 
for one child in, 14(T-A) 
plant costs of, 6, 81(T26) 
private and parochial, cost of, 117 
Elementary science in elementary 
schools, 

cost by grades, 53(T14), 55(T15) 
defined, 50 

Ellis, A. Caswell, 142(f.n.l) 

English in elementary schools, 
costs by grades, 53(T14), 55(T15) 
defined, 49 

English in high schools, instruction 
costs of, 66(T20) 

English, non-speaking persons, program 
for, 27 

Enrolment, 

all schools, 4, 25 
increase in, 5 

Equalization of educational opportunity, 
165(f.n.l), 173 

Equipment. See also Plant costs, 
defined, 29 

Equipment and buildings, 

depreciation in value of, 33, 80-91, 
117 

value of part worn out each year, 
35(T3) 

Evenden, E. S., 21 
Evening schools, 
enrolment, 25 

formula for computing unit costs in, 
68 

instruction costs, 67-70 
program of, 23, 24(Dl) 


Expenditures, all purposes, govern¬ 
mental, net, totals and 
percentages by function, 
153(T45), 154(D12) 
Expenditures, educational, 

compared with economic resources, 
11, 127(Chap. IX) 

correlations with economic resources, 
173 

correlations with state apportion¬ 
ment, 173 

economic limitations of, 12, 141 (Chap. 
X) 

limiting factors, 127 
one day’s schooling, for, 
amount, 14(T-A) 

percentage increase in, 15(T-B), 
16(D-A) 

per capita of population, 
amount, 14(T-A) 

percentage increase in, 15(T-B), 
16(D-A) 

per child of school age, compared with 
real estate valuations and 
sources of revenue on same 
basis, 164(T46), 165(T47) 
percentage of total state and local 
governmental expenditures, 
153(T45), 154(D12) 
plant costs, 31, 32 (D2), 33 (T2) 
total cash disbursements, 

compared with value of real estate 
and income, per child of school 
age, 137(T43), 139(D10) 
variations in, 135(D9) 
total defined, 103 
totals by counties, 167(T48) 
totals for all education, analyzed by 
kinds, 4, 5 

totals for public education, 

amounts, 14(T-A), 38(T4), 104 
(T39), 153(T45), 154(D12) 
percentage increase in, 15(T-B), 
16(D-A) 

totals by types of education, 40(T5) 
Experiment stations, federal subven¬ 
tions to, 95(T36) 

Faraday’s research, value of, 144 
Farm schools, program on, 27 
Federal funds, state basis for distrib¬ 
uting, 96 


INDEX 


197 


Federal support, defined, 93(T35, f.n.3) 
Fine and practical arts, in elementary 
schools, 

cost by grades, 53(T14), 55(T15) 
defined, 50 

Finegan, T. E., 97(f.n.4) 

Fireproof buildings, percentage of all 
buildings, 91(T34) 

Fiscal independence of city school 
systems, 177 (Chap. XIII) 
Fowlkes, G. F., v 

Frame buildings, percentage of all 
buildings, 91(T34) 

Frasier, G. W., 181 

French, instruction costs of in high 
schools, 66(T20) 

Fund, academic, quotas from, 99(T37) 
Fund, common school, amounts for 
various quotas and basis of 
distribution, 99(T37) 

Funds, permanent, total yield, 104(T39) 

Gamble, G. C., v 
Gasoline tax, 157 
General Education Board, iii 
General exercises in elementary schools, 
cost by grades, 53(T14), 55(T15) 
defined, 50 

Geometry, instruction costs in high 
schools, 66(T20) 

Gilbert, Frank B., 93(f.n.) 
Governmental activity, value of, 144 
Governmental expenditures, 
general government, net, 

percentage of total state and local 
governmental expenditures, 
153(T45), 154(D12) 
total state and local, 153(T45), 
154(D12) 

state and local net, totals and percent¬ 
ages by functions, 153(T45), 
154(D12) 

Grades in elementary schools, 
cost per pupil, 57(T16) 
current expenses for, 48 
Grammar grade education. See also 
Elementary schools, 
evening school instruction costs of, 
71(T23) 

Graves, F. P., iv 

Haig, R. M., 156 
Hanson, W. L., v 


Hatch Act, 95(T36) 

Health and sanitation, expenditures, 
net, 

percentage of total state and local 
governmental expenditures, 
153(T45), 154(D12) 
total state and local, 153(T45), 
154(D12) 

Health instruction in elementary schools, 
cost by grades, 53(T14), 55(T15) 
defined, 49 

High schools, see Elementary and high 
schools combined; Junior 
high schools; Secondary ed¬ 
ucation 

Higher education, 

cost of, aggregate accrued economic, 
7 

costs analyzed, 72(T24) 
current expenses of, 70 
enrolment, 25 

instruction costs of, 72(T24) 
minimum salaries for, 75(T25A) 
number of students of New York 
State in attendance on, 70 
(f.n.l) 

private, cost of, 117 
private funds for, 73(f.n.l) 
program of, 23, 24(D1), 26-27 
property, value of, 72(T24) 
state aid for, amounts of, 72(T24) 

Highways and streets, expenditures, net, 
percentage of total state and local 
governmental expenditures, 
153(T45), 154(D12) 
total state and local, 153(T45), 
154(D12) 

History. See also Social studies in 
elementary school, 

high school instruction costs of, 
66(T20) 

Home economics, 

federal subventions for, 
amount, 95(T36) 

total receipts and expenditures, 
102(f.n.l) 

instruction costs of in evening schools, 
69(T21), 71(T23) 

instruction costs of in high schools, 
66(T20) 

Home-making, see Home economics 

Hunt, C. W., v 


198 


INDEX 


Hunter College, 

fees from, included in miscellaneous 
revenue for public education, 
103 

place in state’s educational program, 
26 

teacher training, 73 

current expenses for, 74(T25) 

Illiteracy, program for, 27 
Immigrant education, evening school 
instruction costs of, 71(T23) 
Immigrant education quota, 100(f.n.l6) 
Improvements, local, assessments for, 
115 

Imputed interest, how calculated, 87 
Income, 

aggregate money, estimated, 

amounts, 14(T-A), 132(T42), 

133(D8) 

percentage increase, 15(T-B), 
16(D-A) 

per capita of population, 
amounts, 14(T-A) 
percentage increase, 15(T-B), 
16(D-A) 

compared with value of real estate 
and expenditures for public 
education, per child of school 
age, 137(T43), 139(D10) 
defined, 129(f.n.l) 
national, 

amounts, 132(f.n.) 
defined, 131(f.n.3) 
net, defined, 148 (f.n.l) 
percentage saved, 149, 150 
taxable, total by counties, 167(T48) 
total assigned to New York State, 
134(f.n.l) 

Income tax, 
business, 113, 157 

personal, 11, 109, 113, 129(f.n.l), 158, 
159 

Indebtedness. See also Bonds; and 
Debt, 

bonded outstanding, gross, total, 
105(T40), 

net school, percentage relation to 
total value of school prop¬ 
erty, 189(T54) 

Index of economic resources, see Eco¬ 
nomic resources, index of 


Index of retail prices, 136(f.n.l) 

Index of wholesale prices, 136(f.n.l) 
Indian schools, quota for, 99(T37) 
Industrial education, 

evening school instruction costs of, 
69(T22), 71(T23) 
federal subventions for, 
amount, 95(T36) 

total receipts and expenditures, 
102(f.n.l) 

Inheritance tax, 11, 109, 114 
Insulin, value of, 144 
Insurance, school, 
problems of, 190 

relation of costs to capital outlay, 80 
Interest, 

funded debt for public education, on, 
cash disbursements for, 4 
imputed, how calculated, 87 
imputed on value of plant, accrued 
economic charge for, 35(T3) 
permanent funds, on, total, 104(T39) 
relation to current expenses, 42(f.n.l) 
total for all education, 117 
Interest payments, plant costs, cash 
disbursements for, 33 (T2) 
Interest rate, variations in, 130 
Interest rates on school bonds, 89(T33), 
130(f.n.3) 

Journal of the American Statistical 
Society , 149 
Junior high schools, 

salaries actually paid, 77(T25B) 
salaries, legal minimum, 75(T25A) 

Kindergartens, 

costs, actual, 58-62 
costs if legal requirements and higher 
standards were observed, 118 
enrolment, 25 

program of education on, 23, 24(D1) 
salaries, actually paid, 77(T25B) 
salaries, legal minimum, 75(T25A) 
King, W. I., 136, 149 

Land grant colleges, see Agriculture and 
mechanic arts, colleges of 
Latin, instruction costs of in high schools, 
66(T20) 

Law, education, problem of codification 
of, 191 


INDEX 


199 


Legal requirements, cost if fully en¬ 
forced, 118 

Leisure time, use of, 143(f.n.l) 

Library, State, 26 

Licenses, revenues from, received by 
localities, 115 

Line of “best fit,” 122(f.n.l) 

Local adjustments, program on, 27 
Local improvements, assessments for, 
115 

Lockwood-Donohue bill (for teachers’ 
salaries), 92(f.n.2) 

Lord, Frank, 82(f.n.l) 

McGaughy, J. R., v 
Machine shop, evening school instruc¬ 
tion costs in, 69(T22) 
Maintenance of buildings, ordinary, 
relation to current expenses, 
31(f.n.l) 

Maryland, state aid for schools in, 161 
(f.n.) 

Massachusetts, salaries actually paid 
rural teachers and principals, 
78(T25C) 

Melchior, W. T., v 
Milbank Memorial Fund, iii 
Millinery, evening school instruction 
costs in, 69(T21) 

Miscellaneous revenue for education, 
total, 104(T39) 

Miscellaneous taxes, 11, 109(f.n.5), 114 
Mitchell, W. C., iv 
Morrill Act, 95(T36) 
Mortgage-recording tax, 11, 109, 114 
Motor-vehicle tax, 11 ,109, 114, 157 
Municipal Bond Sales, 87 
Municipal Information, New York State 
Bureau of, 112(footnotes) 

National Bureau of Economic Research, 
131, 134(f.n.l), 136, 149 
National Education Association, iii, 
21, 78 

National Tax Association, 157 
New Jersey, salaries actually paid rural 
teachers and principals, 
78(T25C) 

New York City, 

assessment of land values, method of, 
89 

assessment rate on land values, by 
boroughs, 90 


assessments, unequalized, 131 (f.n.2) 
attendance, average daily, 167(T48) 
buildings, school, age of, 83-85 
buildings and equipment, deprecia¬ 
tion in value of, 90 
capital outlay, 

all public education, cash disburse¬ 
ments for, 33 (T2) 

types of education, cash disburse¬ 
ments for, 81(T26) 
costs, total, 

all public education, cash disburse¬ 
ments and accrued economic 
cost, 38 (T4) 

schools of different grades, 40(T5) 
current expenses, aggregate, 30(Tl) 
debt, bonded for education, 

amount and percentage of total 
state school debt, 105(f.n.l) 
percentage relations to full value 
of real estate, value of school 
property, and total debt for 
all purposes, 188(T53) 
elementary schools, current expenses 
per pupil in, 44(T6) 
expenditures, educational, total, 
167(T48) 

half-time children in, 119 
imputed interest on plant, 88 
income, 

per child of school age, 168(T49) 
per pupil in average daily attend¬ 
ance, 168(T49) 
per teacher, 168(T49) 
percentage of full value of real 
estate, 169(T50) 
total taxable, 167(T48) 
interest rates on school bonds, 89(T33) 
number of children of school age, 
167(T48) 

plant, 

adequacy of, 91 

method of valuation of, accumu¬ 
lated cost, 88 
plant costs, 

annual accrued economic charge 
for, 

imputed interest on value of 
plant, 35(T3) 
totals, 35(T3) 

value of buildings and equipment 
worn out each year, 35(T3) 


200 


INDEX 


New York City, plant costs, 
cash disbursements for, 
capital outlay, 33 (T2) 
interest payments, 33 (T2) 
totals, 33 (T2) 

real estate, full value of taxable, 
per child of school age, 168(T49) 
per pupil in average daily attend¬ 
ance, 168(T49) 
per teacher, 168(T49) 
total, 167(T48) 

revenues, classified by political divi¬ 
sions, 93(T35) 

salaries, legal minimum, of teachers, 
principals, etc., 75(T25A) 
sites, school, value of, 89, 90 
state subventions, total, 167(T48) 
teacher quota, 100(f.n.) 
teachers, number of, 167(T48) 

Non-resident tuition quota, 99(T37) 

Non-tax-supported schools, see Private 
schools 

Normal schools, 

current expenses of, 74(T25) 
part in state’s higher education pro¬ 
gram, 26 

Normal schools and colleges, combined, 
capital outlay, cash disbursements for, 
6, 81(T26) 

total cost of, 5, 40(T5) 

Nurses, school, salaries actually paid to, 
77(T25B) 

Objectives of elementary schools, cur 
rent expenses for, 48 

One day’s schooling, cost of, 

percentage increase in, 15(T-B), 
16(D-A) 
total, 14(T-A) 

Organization, problems of, 13,184(Chap. 
XIV) 

Over-size classes, New York City, 119 

Parochial and private schools. See also 
Private schools, 
attendance at, 117(f.n.l) 
cost of, aggregate accrued economic, 
4,7 

cost of elementary and secondary 
schools, 117 
enrolment in, 4 
teachers, number of, 4 

Partial quotas, 99(f.n.l) 


Part-time education, federal subventions 
for, 

amount, 95(T36, f.n.5) 
state basis for distributing, 96 
Pasteur’s research, value of, 144 
Personal income tax, 11, 109, 113, 129 
(f.n.l), 158, 159 

Personal property tax, 11, 110, 157 
Personalty tax, 108(f.n.3) 

Physical training quota, 99(T37) 
Physically-handicapped children, edu¬ 
cation of, see Special educa¬ 
tion 

Physics, instruction costs of in high 
schools, 66(T20) 

Plan of a Model System of State and 
Local Taxation, 157 
Plant, school, adequacy of, 91 
Plant costs, 

annual accrued economic charge for, 
34-36, 82-91 

cash disbursements for, 4, 6, 31-34, 
80-82 

Police protection, expenditures for, net, 
percentage of total state and local 
governmental expenditures, 
153(T45), 154(D12) 
total state and local, 153(T45), 
154(D12) 

Population, 

children of school age, 

increase in number of, 138 
total by counties, 167(T48) 
distribution of in the state, 3, 22 
economic character of, 161 
percentage increase in, 15(T-B), 
16(D-A), 34 
total, increase in, 138 
Practical arts, see Fine and practical arts 
Principals, 

elementary schools, 

salaries actually paid to, 77(T25B) 
salaries, legal minimum, 75(T25A) 
high schools, 

salaries actually paid to, 77(T25B) 
salaries, legal minimum, 75(T25A) 
junior high schools, salaries actually 
paid to, 77(T25B) 

rural schools, salaries actually paid 
to, 78(T25C) 

Private (non-governmental) activity, 
value of, 145 


INDEX 


201 


Private schools, 

attendance at private and parochial 
schools, 117(f.n.l) 

cost of, aggregate accrued economic, 
4,7 

cost of private and parochial element¬ 
ary and secondary schools, 

117 

defined, 4 
enrolment in, 4, 25 
higher education, 

amounts contributed from private 
sources, 72(T24), 73(f.n.l) 
cost of, 117 

revenues from private sources, 28 
teachers, number of, 4 
Product, educational, character of, 141 
Professional education, control by State 
Department, 26 

Professional training, age period for, 
24(D1) 

Program, educational, 

cost if legal requirements fully en¬ 
forced, 118 

diagram of whole, 24(D1) 
expansions in, 140 
summary of whole, 22-28 
Property, school, value of, 

relation to gross bonded debt for 
education, 188(T53) 
relation to net school indebtedness, 
189(T54) 

Property tax, 10, 108, 109, lll(f.n.2), 
129(f.n.l), 157-159 

Protection of person and property, 
expenditures net, 

percentage of total state and local 
governmental expenditures, 
153(T45), 154(D12) 
total state and local, 153(T45), 
154(D12) 

Public education, 

administration and control of, 3 
cost of, total, 4, 116 
defined, iii, 4 

Public service corporations, value of 
franchises, 132(T42, f.n.2) 
Public utilities, 
expenditures, net, 

percentage of total state and local 
governmental expenditures, 
153(T45), 154(D12) 


total state and local, 153(T45), 
154(D12) 

taxes against, for schools, 157 
Pupils in average daily attendance, 
increase, percentage, 34 
Pupils, number enrolled in school, 4 
Purchasing power of the dollar, change 
in, 5, 136(f.n.l) 

Quotas for distributing state aid, 98, 99 

Randall, S. S., 97(f.n.4) 

Real estate, 

relation to wealth, 130 
taxable, full value of, 

compared with expenditures for 
public education and income 
per child of school age, 
137(T43), 139(D10) 
per capita of population, 14(T-A), 
15(T-B), 16(D-A) 
percentage increase, 15(T-B), 
16(D-A) 

percentage relation to gross bonded 
debt for education, 188(T53) 
percentage relation of income to, 
168(T49) 

total by counties, 167(T48) 
total in state, 14(T-A), 132(T42), 
133(D8) 

value per child of school age com¬ 
pared with expenditures and 
sources of revenue on same 
basis, 164(T46), 165(T47) 
taxation on, 
increase in, 130 
variations in, 130(f.n.l) 

Real estate assessments, 157 
Real estate tax, 157 

Real property, relation to wealth, 130 
Regents, Board of, functions of, 22 
Regents’ examinations, age period for, 
24 (Dl) 

Repairs, relation to current expenses, 
31(f.n.l) 

Research, scientific, value of, 143 
Retail prices, 

index of, 136(f.n.l) 

variations in, compared with varia¬ 
tions in expenditures for 
public education, 135(D9) 
Retarded children, education of, see 
Special education 


202 


INDEX 


Revenue system. See also Revenues, 
description of, 107(Chap. VII) 
relation to problem of school finance, 
156(Chap. XI) 
summary, 10 

Revenues. See also Economic re¬ 
sources; and Revenue sys¬ 
tem, 

analyzed by fiscal nature of sources, 
101, 102(T38) 
federal, total, 93(T35) 
increase and diversion of educational 
support, 146 
local, total, 93(T35) 
private schools, 28 

relationship to size of unit of school 
support, 161 (Chap. XII) 
sources of, 

analyzed, 92(Chap. VI) 
percentages from various political 
divisions in cities classified 
according to fiscal independ¬ 
ence, 179(T51) 
state, total, 93(T35) 
summary, 7, 8 
totals, 

classified according to fiscal char¬ 
acter of sources, 104(T39) 
classified by political divisions, 
93(T35) 
defined, 103 

Rural education, defined for New York 
State, 25 

Rural School Survey of New York State 
(by Joint Committee on 
Rural Schools), 44(f.n.l), 
175(f.n.l) 

Rural schools, 

buildings, age of, 85(T30), 86(T31), 
87(T32) 

compulsory age period, 24(D1) 
salaries actually paid in, 78(T25C) 
salaries, legal minimum, 76(T25A) 
training of teachers for, 27 

Salaries, see Principals; and Teachers’ 
salaries 

Salary-ratio formula, 42 

Sanitation, see Health and sanita¬ 
tion 

Savings, percentage of national income 
saved, 149, 150 


Scholarships, 

state program for, 23, 26 
university, amount devoted to teacher 
training in, 74(T25) 

School taxes, method of collecting, 112, 
113(f.n.l) 

Science, elementary, in elementary 
schools, defined, 50 
Scientific research, value of, 143 
Secondary education. See also Ele¬ 
mentary and high schools 
combined; and High schools, 
consolidated high school, program 
on, 27 

current expenses for high schools, 
62-67 

economies possible through reducing 
curricula, 67(f.n.l) 
enrolment, 5, 25 

evening schools, cost of work of high 
school grade, 68 

increase in percentage of population 
attending high schools, 
138(f.n.l) 
plant costs of, 6 

private and parochial elementary 
and secondary schools, cost 
of, 117 

program of, 23, 24(D1) 
salaries actually paid in, 77(T25B) 
salaries, legal minimum, 75(T25A) 
total cost of high schools, 40(T5) 
training of teachers for high schools, 27 
Sectarian academies, grants to, 99(T37) 
Seligman, E. R. A., iv 
Separate financing of city school sys¬ 
tems, 177(Chap. XIII) 

Serial bonds, value of, 190 
Sewing, evening school instruction costs 
in, 69(T21) 

Sinking funds, value of, 190 
Sites, school. See also Plant costs, 
appreciation in value of, 80, 88 
increase in value of, in New York 
City, 90 

Smith-Hughes Act, 95(T36) 

Smith-Lever Act, 95(T36), 96 
Social studies in elementary school, 
costs, 52(T13), 53(T14), 55(T15) 
defined, 49 

Soft drinks, expenditures for, and edu¬ 
cation, 147 


INDEX 


203 


Special education, 
age period, 24(D1) 
costs, 70 
enrolment, 25 
program, 27 

salaries actually paid in, 77(T25B) 
Special subject costs, grades in element¬ 
ary schools, 57(T16) 

Special subject supervisors, costs of, 
grades in elementary schools, 
57(T16) 

State administration, general, cash dis¬ 
bursements for capital out¬ 
lay of, 6, 81(T26) 

State aid, see Subventions, state 
State College for Teachers, current ex¬ 
penses of, 74(T25) 

State Department of Education, 
buildings, data on value of, 87 
expenses of, 40(f.n.2) 
federal subventions, handling of, 96 
fees from, included in miscellaneous 
revenues for public educa¬ 
tion, 103 

physically handicapped persons, re¬ 
lation to, 27 

plant, reports from districts on, 88 
professional education, control of, 
26 

teachers’ salaries actually paid, data 
on, 76 

State Experiment Station, 96 
State subventions, see Subventions, 
state 

State support, defined, 93(T35, f.n.2) 
States relations service, federal subven¬ 
tions for education, 95(T36, 
f.n.2) 

Stenography, instruction costs of in 
high schools, 66(T20) 

Stock transfer tax, 109, 114 
Stone buildings, percentage of all build¬ 
ings, 91(T34) 

Stoops, R. 0., v 
Strayer, G. D., 178 

Streets and highways, expenditures, 
net, 

percentage of total state and local 
governmental expenditures, 
153(T45), 154(D12) 
total state and local, 153(T45), 
154(D12) 


Subject costs, 

elementary schools, in, 48-56 
high schools, in, 66(T20) 

Subventions, 

federal, 

amounts, total, 101, 102(T38) 
basis of, 94 
state, 

actual operation of present state 
system, 162 

amounts per child of school age, 
compared with real estate 
valuations and sources of 
revenue, 164(T46), 165(T47) 
amounts, totals, 101, 102(T38) 
amounts, totals by counties, 
167(T48) 
basis of, 94 

correlations with economic re¬ 
sources, 173 

correlations with school expendi¬ 
tures, 173 

county system, under, 166 
percentage of school revenue, 
164(T46), 165(T47) 
relation to size of unit of school 
support, 161 (Chap. XII) 
state basis for distributing, 97 
summary, 8 

Supervisors of special subjects in ele¬ 
mentary schools, cost per 
grade, 57(T16) 

Supervisory quota, 99(T37) 

Support of public education, see 
Revenues 
Swift, F. H., 97(f.n.4) 

Syracuse University, 26 

Tax(es). See also Assessments, 
all purposes, for, 

federal, state, and local com¬ 
bined, 

amounts, 14(T-A), 150(T44) 
percentage increase in, 15(T-B), 
16(D-A) 

per capita of population, 
amounts, 14(T-A) 
percentage increase in, 15(T-B), 
16(D-A) 

federal, state, and local separately, 
per capita, 151 (T44) 
total, 150(T44), 152(D11) 


204 


INDEX 


Taxes, all purposes, for, 

state and local combined, 
amounts, 14(T-A) 
collection and distribution, 
amounts and officials con¬ 
cerned, 109(D6) 
per capita of population, 
amounts, 14(T-A) 
percentage increase in, 
15(T-B), 16(D-A) 
percentage increase, 15(T-B), 
16(D-A) 

assessments, unequalized, New York 
City, 131(f.n.2) 

business, 11, 109, 113, 157-159 
education, for, 

compared with taxes for other pur¬ 
poses, 150(T44), 152(D11) 
method of collection, 112 
per capita of population, 151 (T44) 
per child of school age compared 
with real estate valuations 
and sources of revenue on 
same basis, 164(T46), 
165(T47) 

public utilities, from, 157 
total, 104(T39), 150(T44), 152(D11) 
totals by political divisions, 107 (T41) 
miscellaneous, 11, 109(f.n.5), 114 
personal income, 11, 109, 113, 129 
(f.n.l), 158, 159 

property, 10, 108, 109, lll(f.n.2), 
129(f.n.l), 157-159 

public service corporations, value of 
franchises of, 132(T42, f.n.2) 
real estate, full value of taxable, 
132(T42) 
real estate, on, 
increase in, 130 
variations in, 130(f.n.l) 
summary, 9-11 

Tax Association, National, 157 

Tax Commission, State, 
aid on Inquiry, v 

assessment of land values, method of, 89 
report of, 131 (f.n.l) 

Tax dollar, percentages for education 
and other purposes, 12, 151 
(T44), 152(D11) 

Tax rate on full value of real estate, 
amounts, 14(T-A) 

percentage increase, 15(T-B), 16(D-A) 


Tax reform, relationship to taxation 
for schools, 157 
Tax system, 

changes in, recommended by Joint 
Legislative Committee on 
Taxation and Retrenchment, 
157 

characteristics of, 146 
relation to taxation for schools, 156 
Taxation, 

for schools, relation to tax reform, 156 
plan of a model system of state and 
local taxation, 158 
summary of 1921 data, 9, 10 
Taxation and Retrenchment, Special 
Joint Committee on, Report 
of, 110, lll(f.ns.), 156, 
164(f.n.) 

Teacher training, 
cost of, 73, 74(T25) 
cost if legal requirements and higher 
standards are observed, 118 
program of, 23, 26-27 
standards for, defined, llS(f.n.l) 
subventions, federal, for vocational 
work in, 

amount and basis, 95(T36) 
state basis for distribution of, 97 
total receipts and expenditures, 
102(f.n.) 

Teacher training classes, 27 
Teachers, 

expenses at conferences, quota for, 
99(T37) 

number of, by counties, 167(T48) 
number of, in all schools, 4 
number of, in public schools, 4 
salaries, 

actually paid in different types 
of education, 77(T25B), 
78(T25C) 

elementary school costs for, by 
totals, grades and objec¬ 
tives, 46-58 

evening school costs for, 68-70 
extent to which covered in this 
study, 21, 73 

high school costs for, 65(T19), 
66(T20) 

higher education costs for, 72(T24) 
increase in, as related to state aid, 
92 


INDEX 


205 


minimum salary law, digest of, 
75-76 

relation to current expenses, 30 
relation to elementary school cur¬ 
rent expenses, 46 

rural schools, actually paid in, 
78(T25C) 
summary, 6 

Teachers College, Columbia University 
iii, v 

Teachers’ college, state, 27 

Teachers’ quota, 

amount, total for state, 98, 99(T37) 
amounts by types of district, 100(f.n.) 
operation of, 162 

Thurber, C. H., v 

Trade education, 

federal subventions for, 
amount and basis, 95(T36) 
state basis for distributing, 97 
total receipts and expenditures, 
102(f.n.l) 

Training classes for teachers, 
current expenses of, 74(T25) 
place in state’s educational program, 
27 

Training classes for teachers and schools, 
grants to, 99(T37) 

Training of teachers, see Teacher train¬ 
ing 

Training schools, 

current expenses of, 74(T25) 
minimum salaries for, 75(T25A) 

Tuition, non-resident, quota for, (99T37) 

Twente, J. W., v 

Union free schools. (For material deal¬ 
ing with any particular phase 
of education in union free 
schools, e.g., elementary 
schools, look for union free 
schools as a subhead under 
the tables dealing with ele¬ 
mentary schools.) 

minimum salaries for teachers in, 
76(T25A) 

Unit costs, see Costs as a subhead of the 
particular kind of education, 
e.g., elementary schools 


evening schools, formula for comput¬ 
ing in, 68 

United States Bureau of Education, 70 
United States Bureau of Labor, 
136(f.n.l) 

United States Commissioner of Educa¬ 
tion, iii 

United States Department of Agricul¬ 
ture, subventions, federal 
for education, 95(T36, f.n.2) 
United States Deposit Fund, 97 
Updegraff, Harlan, 175(f.n.l) . 

Urban. See also City, 

compulsory age period, 24(D1) 
defined for New York State, 25 
Utilities, see Public utilities 

Vehicle tax, motor, 109, 114, 157 
Villages. (For material dealing with 
any particular phase of edu¬ 
cation in villages, e.g., sec¬ 
ondary education, look for 
villages as a subhead under 
the tables dealing with sec¬ 
ondary education.) 

variations in elementary school costs, 45 
Vocational education, cooperative, 
federal, subventions for, 
amount and basis, 95(T36) 
total receipts and expenditures, 
102(f.n.l) 

Vocational education for teachers, 
federal subventions for, 
95(T36) 

Vocational quota, 99(T37) 

Vocational rehabilitation, federal sub¬ 
ventions for, 95(T36) 
Vocational schools, program on, 27 

Watt’s research, value of, 144 
Wealth. See also Economic resources; 
and Income, 
defined, 129(f.n.l) 

Wholesale price index, 136(f.n.l) 

Woll, M. W., iv 
Wood, W. C., iv 

Woodworking, evening school instruc¬ 
tion costs in, 69(T22) 

Zook, G. F., 70 

























y~ 

O V 


\0 T^ } * 

•y P <P * 

% * /) & % 

O^ *«/"»* A <?> * <> N ° J A 

c\ <<y v> v * y * ° 

♦ ^ A** ^JfWSlL^ ^ A / 



<N * 

«. ^ A K 

o > 



*W 



^ A 
%«* 


° A ^ 
^ <A < 

•n- *r <P '•"°° A 

aV T **••/•„ *> V * 

A A* SJfM&kf. A 


» A vP 
* A? vj b- 

« v <k 


?« A*V ' 

r* 4? %$> % 

A A. * * A 1 

A ,«•'** ^ -Or 0°"°« 'o 

& , 0 ° 

< &WsPZ> + oA^M4* *t. 


- A *• 

w « -vn^n eH ^ « O V 

• * 4 o > « ,.0 v“* * 

<» o ■a/' vP - A^A/[S$r v ^ <i» w 

£» '»^4\\vc5 i 'v _ ^^vy/yP* r\ •** - , UVT . 

\ ,/ % % ’ / V % A 

» *> V S'°. o. S) S',’’-, > - % 

% a /^V/k*" *<* A *vdfe*r. «,. a 

° ^ V 

. A kA ' ' ' % 



vj-*- A" 

o > 




„ $ ^ 

%' A ^ 

°,f *'«/-«• ^9 <? 

/^ > < • • * ^ 

CV A V A ^ * 

♦ x P' ^ jSflrdiM^ <* 


/ A "4 ~‘^1P/ 0 »yi4^*' *A "\ r 

«Cr VTA^ A <> '*.** <6^ % 

-0 o — ♦, °o A sP/lt^s % <s °o 

- JpiK ^ 3> * 0 4 “ ■^ '* 




u> <5-V 


r oK 


O 0 ^ % 

O. ♦ • , 1 ° A 0 %> * 

^c> A 0^ 5 5 V ^ 

• •f* 47 v ,^4^>. <► 

i ° A ♦ 

\ ° « 



o <?5 ^ 

' K < 



A- v „ t /« *<£*» 

^ /IW-r -t 


o V 



^o< 


® « T 


<$>■ O N 0 

■f » 


^5°* 

A -o 

O’ . . 4 


?• » 
** 4y ^ ° 


A 



r 




; - .6 


* A 

, <p *L 

A V ^ *•• 0^ 

^ A 4 ^ * WJ ,, 0 

cf* ^ '^v5^S~ r ~- • 3 p.'3 

^ •»• A °*. **-’• A° 

■ % ^ 'AVa', sP * 

' v\ v "»Wi, •j'% • 

» if %. o 




^ A 


» c s j 

* <fc ^ 







..A ^ % 

o. /A 5 A 'o **' 4 A 

A A o° .‘°-" 0< - '° 

’- ^ o 5 » 

°* '*.« ws 



O. 


A k 


oV 


£ ^ » 
jv 



" V -. 

4 A « " 

qV 0 O « o * ’ 0 

0 * O 

V 




^ ^»* ° v A 

* v v % * 

' \A ,v 



^ ° A 

* A 


r oV 


0 A "o. ' ♦ * * A’ 


^ «o, c> A - s '• 




•»> A ^ 



A , 




• A V ”V O 

-i v N.- * ^ ^ 4 p r k . k» /*'■'Njgr ’^* <y ^ °, 

s <* 'O'** ^ '% *S77>' A <- 'o'.'. * 

. - A ^mk ,\ .A^ 1 '-** ^ 




r oK 


‘ W//M ^ ^ 

^O. • ’* .o° v'-' 3'’* ^ _ 

■^o k0^ .•••<■* ^ »* *»» ^c 

• ^. A*®’ & 4, 

• *“ ^ ® afe * AA A ^ 


o 

J4 ° 

> * A ^ ° 



A^n - 
* V 

•' a" ■'?.?*" ,0^- 

,A t • ’■' "<- ^ ^0^ o».” *. f o 

' ’. ++ Q^ 

: ^ 



k in 

^ o> 

<5> * o N 0 0 < v 

* b> v +y°* 

A ^ A ♦ jAwa*° ^ A 

' . A V^x * 

♦ av "b 


y * A 
^ * <A '^v>, 

4 A " 





o. A <b. 

A v , u/ <s> 

- -o A 

o V . ^ Or 


J> 0v U- 




* o S ' <• > <!““. *O , * * 

BB HI _A « I- < a <J> q 

kf* < \ v Jft'M! / SyS-, \J 

o ^ A K isSmz^ * A> 4 


<l > ^ 


4.°-^ 



4 q. 













y o 

A * 

v 

- ' N/ * 

rL. •* 'KSS- 1 * <1_[ O *• 

' >> 4 ' 5 "° 5 * • 

s * "U*^ V ***<>„ o .0 * 

C yAiik/% * AV * ivwfA° A * 

vv^ 'sMrmkl vp v 

* v ^ 

< <iy ^ *^g 

V \5 

r° v ‘°JL G * 

rsr 0 * o 

« * 

^ 6* 



‘A qP 



' 1 -' A 0 ^ *oTo° <f o 

-<V t s*/^ V \> „y*o. 




* •O/ 5 * 

a ,^ v ^ ^ 


* 0 o. ' * . s 4 A 


^ °- * 


O *A 

,* -jr ^ •>. 

<A '” • ‘ A’ 

>•'«* ^ .CT G°"°* 'O 

-r Cj, Vj * o 

*- ^ o* . 

o A-^ > £>y//n\ w > 

^ *'Vi\v^£> » k v — r*2/v P& * 

<*V ,A 


° ^ *0 o ’ 

^ " 1 • f 0 

• *#. *♦ 4Vi' ^ «V 

- vv ?M£w%i 

S -. ^4iA!ri^ o <VA. 






<^ * t / * '<4> 

A* SL/rftA-r 



o ** < «%Z4' a v s> 

%>**•'* 4? '&\ v o N o' * 

0 4 ‘^* ^ V” * 

, * <$> 4, y 

- J 


3 o 


>y 4 ~J>- 



Nf- -,‘v' 

>\. 

' « „ <P . 


^•r ^ 

♦ Jgw/ 
K « A 



* V ^ •» 


O * *. 




. °o A\'^k* X 

■ * jK(\ ///>b> * %£ <i ' 

- V* n~ 0 


W' * 

A ^r v 

* ' J c> * 

■* <t v ci». 

* 0^ \5 ♦v 


X° vV * w o 

ci* •* -CL^ 

%> ♦ O N 0 0 

** Q sLf* *> V f v *°- c> 


O o A 


: / ^ J . 

*' A ^ »^’T 4 A <> - • •» 

P.V o N C ^ „ t i 8 ^ <$> 

0 G U ^_ ♦ ^ o ^ ,-k t ° ^ ^ 


•* 

.cr o°l°* 'o_ 


O aV^\ o 

♦ 4* ^ •> 


C 6 Ar 
t, a S \ > 


r ^ ^ 

< ^ , >■ ' * ^ 

N ♦ j&tU//ZA!\ ^ 





























































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































